Eastman Kodak: Strong increasing demand for movie film

[Lee Rust]

You know, it seems to me that "photography" (at least cell phone photography in a general sense) is becoming a form of performance art and that actually saving the moment for recall and reflection is becoming less and less important.

There is the act of photographing the event, briefly noting it's capture and then posting it online as proof of a full and prosperous life. Once this is accomplished, the image has no further value and can be discarded with the phone upon which it was taken.

Maybe that's the major disconnect between what we do as photographers and what most snap shooters do; we still think we are preserving the moment for us and future generations to experience, while they are simply using a tool for online social currency...

It seems like the digital online culture is concerned mostly with the present, with nary a pause for consideration of the past. The incoming and outgoing information stream is so continuous that whatever happened yesterday quickly scrolls down to the bottom of the screen and disappears. Then there's the performance aspect... now anybody can be the star of their own personal lifestyle drama series, broadcasting continuously on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Twitter etc. What we traditionalists see as individual photographs are nothing more than single frames flashing quickly by in the ongoing video stream... quickly displaced and replaced.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ho hum. I'm perfectly happy to be a fossil living in the past. And now even "still" photography largely left the confines of a picture frame and started resembling paintball wars. I turn my nose up to it and just keep doing what I enjoy. Let future archaeologists shovel through the chicken coop poop to see what lies in the stratum above discarded hula hoops, which will no doubt be selfie sticks, and then in the stratum above that one forming right now.

 

[pentaxuser]

Anything other than a call phone is VERY rare and almost looked down on. Like only a person of very low status wouldn't have a cell phone. These shared photos of important family moments will be gone as soon as they get a new phone or change carriers. I doubt m,any people even back these up to another device.

Quite so Stephe. See my comment in the very recent thread on negs found amongst rubble in Moldova. I manage with a landline phone. One day soon the smell of my rotting body will alert the authorities to break down the door. The coroner will conclude that I had tried to ring for help but no-one had a landline to receive the call. They will find my files of negatives around me but will anyone except Henning Serger know how to print from them?

Sorry Henning just my quirky British sense of humour

pentaxuser

 

[foc]

You know, it seems to me that "photography" (at least cell phone photography in a general sense) is becoming a form of performance art and that actually saving the moment for recall and reflection is becoming less and less important.

There is the act of photographing the event, briefly noting it's capture and then posting it online as proof of a full and prosperous life. Once this is accomplished, the image has no further value and can be discarded with the phone upon which it was taken.

Maybe that's the major disconnect between what we do as photographers and what most snap shooters do; we still think we are preserving the moment for us and future generations to experience, while they are simply using a tool for online social currency...

+1
Very well said.

 

[Henning Serger]

.......the 4K and 8K cinema projection is better than anything I can do at home.

Fortunately in still photography projection at home with film is by far unsurpassed, offering unique quality. And will be unsurpassed for decades to come.
I've done numerous tests in my optical test lab: The resolution of slide film projection with excellent projection lenses is the benchmark and unsurpassed. Depending on the film and object contrast you get resolution values onto the screen equivalent to 50 - 180 MP.
The very expensive 4k digital projection has only 8 MP. And with 8k you are also still not in the film resolution range. And 4k / 8k digital projectors cost a fortune, whereas slide projectors with the best lenses are very cheap.
The three-dimensional look of slide projection is also unique.The in direct comparison flat and lifeless look of digital projectors can't compete in this area, too.
And the colour brillance of slide projection is also unique. The amazing Ektachrome, Astia, Provia, Velvia colours with digital projectors? Forget it.
Slide projection belongs to the best quality film can offer.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

There is the act of photographing the event, briefly noting it's capture and then posting it online as proof of a full and prosperous life. Once this is accomplished, the image has no further value and can be discarded with the phone upon which it was taken.

We here on photrio consider taking pictures as a form of creating images - as a hobby, art form or profession - for the long term.
And the image has its meaning as an image, standing for itself.

But with the smartphone the meaning of the image has changed: It is now also - or perhaps even mainly - a communication form: Pictures are used instead of words. Pictures are replacing talks.
That is a fundamental change.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Agulliver]

@pentaxuser which part of the UK are you in?

Pretty much any time I go somewhere worth photographing in London I see others with film cameras. I see people in and around Luton town centre for goodness sake...though that may be because the local university still teaches photography. I've also taken time to talk with camera shop owners in Luton, London and Cardiff and they all report a surge during the last 18 months or so in young people shooting film...buying film, film cameras (where they haven't been given one by older relatives) and equipment. At London's Winder Wonderland last month, for the first time since I started going three years ago I saw two other people with film cameras.

On the South coast, say Dorest, I saw people with film cameras in summer 2019...probably the first time I have seen this since the early 2000s. In Oxford in late 2018 on a lovely sunny autumn day I exchanged winks with a lovely young Japanese woman wielding a pink Hasselblad.

I haven't been to the North or midlands recently.

The other tangible difference is that I don't get strange looks like I am mad any more, when I'm out and about with film gear. I get nods, smiles, or people asking me about the gear and whether I am shooting B&W or colour.

 

[pentaxuser]

Agulliver I live in what might be termed the S Mids but visit many National Trust properties which attracts lots of cameras. I usually see several per visit but none are analogue. Most used to be digital but now these are generally outnumbered by the iPhone cameras which now seem to be the box brownies of the start of the third decade of the 21st century.

I manage visits to largish places like Northampton, Banbury or Leicester and again never see anyone wandering around with an analogue camera

While my experience may appear to be at the opposite end of the scale to yours I do wonder if the likes of London is representative of a real( as in substantial) increase in film use.

pentaxuser

 

[GLS]

I haven't been to the North or midlands recently.

I've seen a handful of other film shooters in Manchester (including another guy with a Pentax 67), but it's still very much a rarity. People asking questions about my cameras is more common though, and it's nearly always of a positive nature.

At the end of the day people shooting film still represent a tiny minority. Hell, even DSLRs are a very small minority. The vast majority of people seem satisfied to use their phones for all their photo taking needs, despite the absolute garbage quality. As is all too often the case for many, convenience and speed trumps everything else.

 

[Agulliver]

You weren't in Northampton or Banbury when I was

I've no doubts that the phone and digital camera users outnumber the film shooters, but just four years ago I could pretty much guarantee I'd be the only person out and about shooting film when I did so...and that any interaction with other people was sceptical or even negative. Often the assumption was that I had no film in the camera or that I was somewhat unhinged. That's all changed and probably 50% of the time I do see others out shooting film...especially in National Trust type areas or picturesque towns. When people approach me they are interested in the gear, and what type of film I am shooting rather than assuming it's not loaded or that I am nuts.

I've taken to shooting film at "the Bear Club", Luton's jazz/blues club. I've been something like 30 times in the last 10 months and all bar one band has asked to see my photos, recognising that I am shooting on film. Several have gone on to use my photos in promotional material. One band had a drummer who shoots 6x7 medium format, and he was fascinated with my 1930s Zeiss-Ikon 6x6 folder. On another occasion an audience member asked to borrow my Yashica Minster III to shoot from a different angle to that which I was viewing from and we later had a good old talk about film photography. The owner of the club has a dark room himself with such ephemera as the box for a Jobo processor part of the club decor and at least one of his bar staff shoots film. Indeed the owner of the club is a film-maker and also organises a film festival and he's seen an increase recently in small film-makers using film. So the motion picture business of Kodak will be benefiting just a little from such individuals at the 8mm and 16mm end.

 

[pentaxuser]

You weren't in Northampton or Banbury when I was

.

We obviously go to those two towns and to NT properties on different days . I can't say however that my using a film camera has ever drawn any kind of attention or questions and certainly no negative vibes

It might not help that I always go to places, bottle of whisky in hand, wearing a kilt and a T shirt that says "Still seeking revenge for 9-3 at Wembley in 1961"

pentaxuser

 

[Henning Serger]

While my experience may appear to be at the opposite end of the scale to yours I do wonder if the likes of London is representative of a real( as in substantial) increase in film use.
pentaxuser

Just one general statement concerning what we are seeing - or are not seeing - out in the streets:
As someone who is doing very successful market research for a very long time, I can ensure that these anecdotical observations (both positve and negative ones) are often interesting and entertaining, but they are completely irrelevant for a proper market assessment.
Just three examples to make it more clear:
1) Several million digital ILC (interchangeable lens cameras) are sold every year. Demand is significantly declining, but nevertheless still millions of units every year. I know almost all the different types and different models. How many of these different models have I seen in the last years out in the street, or on photographer meetings, or photo fairs?
Maybe 5 - 10% of them, not more.
I know that manufacturer A is selling hundreds of thousands of units of this certain camera model XY p.a.. But I have not seen any of these units out in the streets. Based on my personal observation: Would I now make the conclusion that this model is not sold well, or sold at all? Of course not!! Because if I talk to camera distributors they show me the numbers and I see that quite a lot of this model is sold, the demand is there.

2) Film photographers here locally out in the streets:
Do I see some? Yes, but seldom.
But when I go to my local lab or camera store, I see them in big numbers. So I know: Yes, film is regularly used in my town. Despite the observation that I seldom see some "out in the streets".

By the way, and that is often forgotten in these discussions: What kind of photography can you as an enthusiast photographer do "out in the streets": Mainly architecture and artistic street photography. How many of us are into that? Certainly not the majority.
So the observation that we don't see so many film or generally enthusiast photograpers "out in the streets" may also be caused by the simple fact that our streets are not our main shootings locations, or our preferred genres as (film) photographers.
Here in my town I generally don't see so much enthusiast photographers "out in the streets".

3) Instax:
How often have I seen an instax camera used "out in the streets"? Only one time in the last two years: Some young girls used one at the neighbour table in a cafe.
But
- I know that friends of mine are using it
- my niece has started using one
- a friend of mine asked me just today which instax camera I could recommend for his 17 year old daugther, she wants one
- my local camera shop is selling 2.000 instax film packs every months
- Fujifilm has sold 10 million instax cameras in their last fiscal year
- my local drugstore chain shop offers it and the shelves are always getting empty and being refilled
- I am using it myself for years .
So from the "have I seen it out in the streets" point of view you could come to the conclusion very few people are using it. But if you do proper market research and use the really relevant sources you immediately see that just the opposite is true: it's a booming product (Fujifilm itself assesses the market volume globally to be 40 million instax users).

The "can I see the product out in the streets" assessment is not able at all to give a really valid and proven market assessment. Not in photography (neither film nor digital), and not in most other product / market areas.
For film photography the data from the
- film manufacturers
- paper manufacturers
- film distributors
- photo chemistry manufacturers
are relevant for a valid film photography market assessment.
And this data is very clearly indicating a film photography revival, which has gained momentum in the last 18 months.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[iandvaag]

Fortunately in still photography projection at home with film is by far unsurpassed, offering unique quality.

You are absolutely right. Digital is fine as a capture technology, but as a presentation/display technology, it can't hold a candle to analog. And the reason I make photos is to look at them!

Try viewing a pair of well exposed medium format stereo slides in a back-lit handheld viewer. It'll knock your socks off!

 

[Agulliver]

I just wish it was easier to persuade family and friends that sitting down while I project some slides is a desirable way to spend an hour or so.

Movie film projection, is a different matter but my Elmo ST1200 needs some attention.

 

[StepheKoontz]

But with the smartphone the meaning of the image has changed: It is now also - or perhaps even mainly - a communication form: Pictures are used instead of words. Pictures are replacing talks.
That is a fundamental change.

Correct, I am very active on social media and phone images are used very differently. I also posts scans of my B&W film photography and everyone can clearly see these are a very different type of photography than cell phone images.

 

[jtk]

Just one general statement concerning what we are seeing - or are not seeing - out in the streets:
As someone who is doing very successful market research for a very long time, I can ensure that these anecdotical observations (both positve and negative ones) are often interesting and entertaining, but they are completely irrelevant for a proper market assessment.
Just three examples to make it more clear:
1) Several million digital ILC (interchangeable lens cameras) are sold every year. Demand is significantly declining, but nevertheless still millions of units every year. I know almost all the different types and different models. How many of these different models have I seen in the last years out in the street, or on photographer meetings, or photo fairs?
Maybe 5 - 10% of them, not more.
I know that manufacturer A is selling hundreds of thousands of units of this certain camera model XY p.a.. But I have not seen any of these units out in the streets. Based on my personal observation: Would I now make the conclusion that this model is not sold well, or sold at all? Of course not!! Because if I talk to camera distributors they show me the numbers and I see that quite a lot of this model is sold, the demand is there.

2) Film photographers here locally out in the streets:
Do I see some? Yes, but seldom.
But when I go to my local lab or camera store, I see them in big numbers. So I know: Yes, film is regularly used in my town. Despite the observation that I seldom see some "out in the streets".

By the way, and that is often forgotten in these discussions: What kind of photography can you as an enthusiast photographer do "out in the streets": Mainly architecture and artistic street photography. How many of us are into that? Certainly not the majority.
So the observation that we don't see so many film or generally enthusiast photograpers "out in the streets" may also be caused by the simple fact that our streets are not our main shootings locations, or our preferred genres as (film) photographers.
Here in my town I generally don't see so much enthusiast photographers "out in the streets".

3) Instax:
How often have I seen an instax camera used "out in the streets"? Only one time in the last two years: Some young girls used one at the neighbour table in a cafe.
But
- I know that friends of mine are using it
- my niece has started using one
- a friend of mine asked me just today which instax camera I could recommend for his 17 year old daugther, she wants one
- my local camera shop is selling 2.000 instax film packs every months
- Fujifilm has sold 10 million instax cameras in their last fiscal year
- my local drugstore chain shop offers it and the shelves are always getting empty and being refilled
- I am using it myself for years .
So from the "have I seen it out in the streets" point of view you could come to the conclusion very few people are using it. But if you do proper market research and use the really relevant sources you immediately see that just the opposite is true: it's a booming product (Fujifilm itself assesses the market volume globally to be 40 million instax users).

The "can I see the product out in the streets" assessment is not able at all to give a really valid and proven market assessment. Not in photography (neither film nor digital), and not in most other product / market areas.
For film photography the data from the
- film manufacturers
- paper manufacturers
- film distributors
- photo chemistry manufacturers
are relevant for a valid film photography market assessment.
And this data is very clearly indicating a film photography revival, which has gained momentum in the last 18 months.

Best regards,
Henning

Our refrigerator displays several Instax photos made by Navajo indian girls (adoptive daughters of my girlfriend).

 

[Agulliver]

Correct, I am very active on social media and phone images are used very differently. I also posts scans of my B&W film photography and everyone can clearly see these are a very different type of photography than cell phone images.

What got me back into film photography after a hiatus of a few years was going on holiday in late 2013 and forgetting the charger for my DSLR. I'd also packed a film SLR on a whim and a couple of rolls of Tri-X. Those came in very handy when I couldn't just shoot the DSLR as and when, fearing the battery would run out.

Firstly I remembered how much fun shooting in B&W was, how to look at the world differently and imagine the greyscale rather than colours. Secondly, when I developed and scanned the film I posted about 1/3 of the pictures to social media where the people I'd been on holiday with could see them. I could see the difference between those and the digital pictures, but would everyone else? The reaction was so overwhelmingly positive that I decided there and then to shoot some B&W film alongside digital every time I visited somewhere or went on holiday. That extended a few years later to getting back into shooting colour film again and appreciating the differences between colour film and digital all over again.

 

[CMoore]

Our refrigerator displays several Instax photos made by Navajo indian girls (adoptive daughters of my girlfriend).

That sounds like an interesting story.
You should think about posting some of their stuff on the forum.

 

[Europan]

If Kodak only offered all their 16-mm. stocks also perforated both edges, they could at least say that they did something for a format the old Eastman-Kodak company had introduced, writing all the time about a legacy. Mitchell 16 Professional camera. Trick work.

If they offered 7294 Ektachrome as Double-Eight rolls, 25-50-100 feet, they could do something for the thousands of cameras and projectors only waiting for it. Since the announced Super-8 camera has not come in four years, the good old Double Eight system might revive. Those all-metal machines can be overhauled, they are mostly reliable. Kodak should quit selling plastic with the one exception of film.

 

[138S]

KODAK VISION3 , This is $0.76 per feet, so $2.5 per meter (2.26€) of 35mm film (B&H, today), probably studios get it well cheaper.

Personally I've been thinking in cropping 65mm stock film to fit in MF rolls.

Vision3 may require some particular filtration in the taking and some 3D LUT work in the post to nail Portra skin tones, but considering that VISION3 film ends are found quite cheap then it may be worth experimenting. Vision is not exactly Portra, but this is not necessarily bad.

Probably EK made a good job in the promotion and in the pricing strategy.

Manufacturing of Portra has similar (lower) cost than Vision, and those $2.5 per meter sets a reference for the room KA has to balance price vs sells vs profit.

It would be great to see KA making a bet to expand market. Most of us want to see the film flourishment to continue.

 

[Wallendo]

Although we talk about how fleeting and disposable most modern digital images are, can we say the same about most snapshots on film?

To the best of my knowledge, I still have all the slides I have shot over the last 50 years.Prints I shot in the 80's have been lost over the years, but my photos are mostly intact from the mid-90's onward. I suspect I, like many on Apug, am an outlier. I suspect that most prints made worldwide during have been lost, misplaced, damaged or forgotten. To my shame, I haven't organized my prints since 2003. The nice thing about film and analog prints, is that the are long-lasting, and I still have the prints and negatives to access and use. Hoepfull during these cold winter nights, I can get to work on curated my shots from the last 17 years, selecting out the keepers and placing them in albums.

As for the increased demand for movie film, I am happy about this because it keeps the coating lines running at Eastman Kodak. My only concern is if still film production is temporarily delayed as a result.

 

[perkeleellinen]

All my family - I mean all - threw away negatives and kept their favourite prints often only 6x4 or smaller. I'd love to re-print some of them big but the negs are twenty years deep in landfill.

 

[Anon Ymous]

All my family - I mean all - threw away negatives and kept their favourite prints often only 6x4 or smaller. I'd love to re-print some of them big but the negs are twenty years deep in landfill.

You are not alone... Obviously, I didn't do it, but someone else threw away decades worth of negatives. I almost had a stroke when I found out what had happened.

 

[CMoore]

You are not alone... Obviously, I didn't do it, but someone else threw away decades worth of negatives. I almost had a stroke when I found out what had happened.

I lived in San Franciso for 20 years.
I shot "Street Photog" all the time i was there.
When i moved to Suisun, my negs did not make it.
I would guess about 3-4 thousand negatives.

There must have been ONE Pulitzer Prize winner in there somewhere.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Vision3 may require some particular filtration in the taking and some 3D LUT work in the post to nail Portra skin tones, but considering that VISION3 film ends are found quite cheap then it may be worth experimenting. Vision is not exactly Portra, but this is not necessarily bad.

Cost the time and effort in this (pointless) endeavour & Portra is very cheap indeed. There are some quite significant differences in design and aim & your pleasingly naive belief in 'LUT'-ing your way out won't help one impersonate the other. The best you'll get is something that sort of resembles the other in overall feel. Let the materials be what they are and you'll make better work rather than getting yourself into a huge and urgent knot over your entitled demands for cheap film of the aesthetics you desire. You could probably make an apple look like an orange (given sufficient effort), but no matter the energy you expend, it'll never be an orange in texture or taste.

Manufacturing of Portra has similar (lower) cost than Vision

You'd better have a definitive source for this claim. Reality is that the QC is likely tougher for still than motion picture - at 24/25 FPS a small flaw is long gone before you notice it.