Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 2, 2014

Henning Serger said:
The pilot coater at Film Ferrania is much bigger in comparison: Small production runs are possible. This machine was used in the past not only for research and testing, but also for market tests, when limited runs were given to selected photographers to test films under daily shooting conditions.

The common sense assumption is that the remaining large-scale coating machines are long-term dinosaurs, with many now taking their final breaths. But your post piques my curiosity.

If suitable residual markets for film could hypothetically be demonstrated, what sort of costs would be involved in creating new right-sized coating machines similar to what you describe above, but purpose-built instead of repurposed? Not that I expect anyone to do it. I'm just curious about the hypothetical costs involved.

The big boys were enormously expensive, both to create and to maintain. No one will ever do that again. But are the little guys also undoable ever again? Meaning, are we now stuck with only the final existing collection of old repurposed R&D machines, and headed eventually for an Efke-style end game where things just wear down and break for good?

Or alternatively, maybe a future where film companies outsource all of their coating to third-party dedicated coating companies, whose machines also service many coating-related industries other than film?

Ken

Prest_400 · Sep 2, 2014

RattyMouse said:
Read Fujifilm's financials. Go back 10 years. Every year, Fujfilm has LOST money on their digital cameras. Every. Year.

Thom Hogan wrote a column recently about Fuji saying something like, Fujifilm could flush their entire digital camera division down the drain and INCREASE their profits.

True words.

I heard about that quite a bit. So just for the passion and making up the losses thanks to the diversification.
Hope still film is doing well and they keep going on (despite small benefit) just because they are the single manufacturer on the market (E6) and keeping options alive.

Henning Serger said:
in the major markets we have enough E6 developing capacity at labs. And the clever labs extend their services, especially their mail-order offerings.
E.g. in Spain the very trendy and marketing active "Carmencita Film Lab" just recently added E6 service to their C41 and BW film development.

And , by the way, one of the initiators of the new Film Ferrania, Marco Pagni, is running a cine film lab in Italy. Maybe he will extend the services of his lab.

Indeed some labs are covering the space that others left and giving the capacity. That is very good.

Ken Nadvornick said:
If suitable residual markets for film could hypothetically be demonstrated, what sort of costs would be involved in creating new right-sized coating machines similar to what you describe above, but purpose-built instead of repurposed? Not that I expect anyone to do it. I'm just curious about the hypothetical costs involved.

The big boys were enormously expensive, both to create and to maintain. No one will ever do that again. But are the little guys also undoable ever again? Meaning, are we now stuck with only the final existing collection of old repurposed R&D machines, and headed eventually for an Efke-style end game where things just wear down and break for good?

Or alternatively, maybe a future where film companies outsource all of their coating to third-party dedicated coating companies, whose machines also service many coating-related industries other than film?

Ken

IIRC Inoviscoat was that. They are the newest company with the newest film coater around. As far I know the company built its new coater and some of its know-how comes from Agfa.
Infact, they seemingly make under contract several materials: Impossible (Neg material), Adox (film and paper), Lomo (Lomochrome).

I am recalling what I remember reading around here, perhaps some German members can elaborate further on it.

And as of Kodak (Alaris), Harrow did coat film a few years ago and nowadays it only makes Paper. That plant could be repurposed again for making film now and then. But it is possible that it's quite a big facility as well, and wouldn't be quite right sized for still film.
Fuji we know little about...

OT but in this kind of discussion PE's hindsights and experience are invaluable.

Xmas · Sep 2, 2014

Prest_400 said:
I heard about that quite a bit. So just for the passion and making up the losses thanks to the diversification.
Hope still film is doing well and they keep going on (despite small benefit) just because they are the single manufacturer on the market (E6) and keeping options alive.

Indeed some labs are covering the space that others left and giving the capacity. That is very good.

IIRC Inoviscoat was that. They are the newest company with the newest film coater around. As far I know the company built its new coater and some of its know-how comes from Agfa.
Infact, they seemingly make under contract several materials: Impossible (Neg material), Adox (film and paper), Lomo (Lomochrome).

I am recalling what I remember reading around here, perhaps some German members can elaborate further on it.

And as of Kodak (Alaris), Harrow did coat film a few years ago and nowadays it only makes Paper. That plant could be repurposed again for making film now and then. But it is possible that it's quite a big facility as well, and wouldn't be quite right sized for still film.
Fuji we know little about...

OT but in this kind of discussion PE's hindsights and experience are invaluable.

EKs Harrow film (coater line 4) was closed down about 2005 and people (about 400) redeployed (most redundant).
I had assumed the building had been sold but I an advised it is still extant.
The site us now KAs.
To restart apart from a refurbish you would need

IPR
process documentation
staff
money

They may be missing all four.

There was another film facility in France.

Sal Santamaura · Sep 2, 2014

Xmas said:
...To restart apart from a refurbish you would need

IPR
process documentation
staff
money

They may be missing all four...

You missed the fifth one -- a business case suggesting it would be profitable to do so even if those first four were readily available.

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 2, 2014

Sal Santamaura said:
You missed the fifth one -- a business case suggesting it would be profitable to do so even if those first four were readily available.

Well, that was sort of the thrust of my question. Assume for a moment the business case existed, along with the other three requirements. Then what kind of money are we talking? I recall that Harman has stated in the past a ballpark figure of GBP300,000 to create a brand new 220 finishing machine (machines?) and that it was undoable for them by ROI constraints.

I wouldn't expect a right-sized mini-coating line to be anywhere near that inexpensive. And even less justifiable. But what might it be? Ballpark?

I realize the fellow, in Oz I believe, was building a prototype from plywood in his garage. But I was thinking something a little more... umm... industrially substantial? You know, something you wouldn't be ashamed to show your mother when she came to visit...

Ken

RattyMouse · Sep 2, 2014

Ken Nadvornick said:
Well, that was sort of the thrust of my question. Assume for a moment the business case existed, along with the other three requirements. Then what kind of money are we talking? I recall that Harman has stated in the past a ballpark figure of GBP300,000 to create a brand new 220 finishing machine (machines?) and that it was undoable for them by ROI constraints.

I wouldn't expect a right-sized mini-coating line to be anywhere near that inexpensive. And even less justifiable. But what might it be? Ballpark?

I realize the fellow, in Oz I believe, was building a prototype from plywood in his garage. But I was thinking something a little more... umm... industrially substantial? You know, something you wouldn't be ashamed to show your mother when she came to visit...

Ken

Sal Santamaura · Sep 2, 2014

Sal Santamaura said:
You missed the fifth one -- a business case suggesting it would be profitable to do so even if those first four were readily available.

Ken Nadvornick said:
Well, that was sort of the thrust of my question. Assume for a moment the business case existed...

And the thrust of my post was an implied "such a business case doesn't exist."

Ken Nadvornick · Sep 2, 2014

Which does nothing to further the line of hypothetical inquiry. Sometimes one has to imagine things in order to make progress...

Kirk: "Why did this happen?"

Spock: "Insufficient data, Captain."

Kirk: "Then speculate, Mr. Spock..."

Ken

cmacd123 · Sep 2, 2014

RattyMouse said:
Did Kodak ever grind their own lenses for their science and military applications?

.

I am sure they ground all their own lenses, except for the Molded Plastic ones in the low end cameras.
Examples of the High end lenses :http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Kodak_lenses

some of their lenses were really out of this world:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
http://www.space.com/13287-secret-spy-satellite-designer-reveals-lifes-work.html
and then there were the Mirrors...
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1279/1

Nzoomed · Sep 2, 2014

RattyMouse said:
Fujifilm was NOT smart, or at least, not smart as you suggest. Fujifilm is a success today because they moved heaven and earth to get away from photographic businesses. If you look at Fujifilm's numbers, they are a total failure at selling digital cameras. Their revenue from digital cameras is a measly 3-4% of their total sales. Had Fujifilm bet the farm on their digital cameras, they would have ended up bankrupt and failed just like Kodak.

Read Fujifilm's financials. Go back 10 years. Every year, Fujfilm has LOST money on their digital cameras. Every. Year.

Thom Hogan wrote a column recently about Fuji saying something like, Fujifilm could flush their entire digital camera division down the drain and INCREASE their profits.

True words.

Interesting what you say about their digital cameras, as they seem to be farily highly regarded here in New Zealand.
Not that they sell to the professional market, im just talking about entry level consumer cameras, something you would compare to a canon or sony compact, etc.

Now if Fuji indeed have had poor failure with their digital cameras, no wonder Kodak's were an utter failure, because they were total crap.

RattyMouse · Sep 2, 2014

Nzoomed said:
Interesting what you say about their digital cameras, as they seem to be farily highly regarded here in New Zealand.
Not that they sell to the professional market, im just talking about entry level consumer cameras, something you would compare to a canon or sony compact, etc.

Now if Fuji indeed have had poor failure with their digital cameras, no wonder Kodak's were an utter failure, because they were total crap.

Fuji cameras have always been highly regarded. The problem is, as Kodak knows so very well, is that camera sales can *never* replace film sales. There just isnt enough profit in selling cameras compared to selling billions of rolls of film.

Hence Fujifilm's complete migration away from photographic related businesses. Fujifilm makes more money selling female cosmetics (Astialift brand).

It takes a Canon and Nikon to make profits and THEY are struggling big time.

Dr Croubie · Sep 2, 2014

Nzoomed said:
Interesting what you say about their digital cameras, as they seem to be farily highly regarded here in New Zealand.

I'm sure they're fairly well regarded in a lot of places.
But "fairly well regarded" != "sells well".
Fuji have gotten a lot of kudos for the XPro lines, as did sony with their Nex and especially A7. Are they selling well?
Canon has been bashed for years over its slow growth in technological advances, mostly by canon fanbois themselves (there's a good reason I don't visit canonrumours as much as I used to, even with a few thousand forums posts to my name there). They feel that canon is lagging behind in not having a high-MP sensor, no uber-wide-angle 12mm zoom, no see-in-the-dark sensor, no whatever-else, you name it and any other company does it better than Canon.

As they say in sports:
"Look at the scoreboard".

Canon has been selling like hotcakes, they can't churn them out fast enough. Despite whatever technological impediments that Canon may have, the one thing they do have is the ability to sell them. Nikon is tanking. Fujifilm isn't much better. Sony lose more money every day than most of us could ever dream of seeing in a lifetime. Whatever makes tech fanbois cream their pants (even I would, a year or two ago, have been one of them), somehow does not translate into sales...

Ricardo Miranda · Sep 2, 2014

Back to Ferrania:

[h=2]Can I test film for you?[/h]

Everybody loves free film! When the time is right, we will publish something here on our website outlining our policies for testing and any other promotional uses

On the FAQ page.

RattyMouse · Sep 2, 2014

Dr Croubie said:
Whatever makes tech fanbois cream their pants (even I would, a year or two ago, have been one of them), somehow does not translate into sales...

Absolutely spot on there. Fujifilm's technology is routinely steamrollered by Canon and Nikon. Even in Japan, Fuji's best market, they dont even have 2% market share with digital cameras. That's an abysmal showing by any standard.

Nzoomed · Sep 3, 2014

Ricardo Miranda said:
Back to Ferrania:

On the FAQ page.

Thats awesome, because ive also asked them for samples to test, not that i was expecting them for free, but i want to be one of the first to try it!

Xmas · Sep 3, 2014

RattyMouse said:
Absolutely spot on there. Fujifilm's technology is routinely steamrollered by Canon and Nikon. Even in Japan, Fuji's best market, they dont even have 2% market share with digital cameras. That's an abysmal showing by any standard.

Depends on profit margin... In the hay days of film 2% of film sales up from 1% = happy board room...

The business cases for film is 'sales volume dropping like billet of DU on Jupiter every quarter' even in green or yellow box.

My volume film 5222 history this week 'no' mono cine people left.

If you have a multi purpose coating line you won't need to coat photo film no customers = - profit.

If you dont buy Ferrania they will dissappear like the pied piper with your camera resale value...

Hoarding yellow or green boxes in fridge like emailing Judas with kissogram. But I accept there will be lots that see no wrong...

I need to order some Orwo tomorrow, and buy some Kentmere bulk.

Ricardo Miranda · Sep 3, 2014

Xmas said:
I need to order some Orwo tomorrow, and buy some Kentmere bulk.

And I'll be ordering some Kentmere 400 at the end of the month.

Tom Kershaw · Sep 3, 2014

Ricardo Miranda said:
And I'll be ordering some Kentmere 400 at the end of the month.

Is the Kentmere film any good? I don't use much 35mm at the moment so haven't investigated the line.

Tom

Xmas · Sep 3, 2014

HiTom

Kentmere400 is very similar to HP5+ but a lot cheaper I only use bulk at about 2/3 cost.

They both have soft toes if you do 'pushing'.

Use Fomapan400 as well it is just detectably more grainy with less dynamic range and an ISO of 250.

But you can take photos with any of them.

Noel

Nzoomed · Sep 3, 2014

I think this shows that there is still a healthy film market, and i think we have seen most of the dip, and the market will probably stay around the level it is now, possibly increase with the way lomography is going.
The film coater that Film Ferrania has probably will do them for years to come without any worries about increase in demand.

The question being, will this spark competition, or will Film Ferrania end up being a niche business being the only colour film producer?
Will AGFA in Belgium stop production of the Aviphot being used for digibase and wittnerchrome etc? Or will they see that there is a niche film market and continue production?
I dont know how big their coater is or the scale of their facility.
It certainly looks like kodak has downscaled significantly, there is a video on youtube taken in the 1950s of a kodak factory (in europe i think) and their master rolls for B&W film were over 2 stories high, it shows the roll getting put into the factory with a crane, and its huge!
Reading the kodak article, it claims that their master rolls are about a mile long and about 1.3 or 1.5m wide, so this is a hell of a lot smaller than what was being dealt with some time back.

Anyway, with Film Ferrania using their research coater as the main coating machine, will they have production holdups when they are researching new emulsions?
Since they want to bring back more films that are long since discontinued, they will have to test them using the same coater for main production, do you think this will cause then delays, or will they have plenty of film in stock?

Photo Engineer · Sep 3, 2014

Reading all of this since I last looked in on it was rather tiring as a first effort on APUG.

However;

Kodak made some of the best glass lenses ever produced in the world. No one but the US govt. could afford them though!

Kodak has several film and paper pilot machines which could be upgraded with minimal work to produce fine quality materials. The film pilot machines range from 21" down to 4.5", and yes, I know that they are in bad shape or even partly / mostly gone, but they did exist and can be refitted if the money was there. With paper, 11" is the widest that can be produced.

My guess is that only a 4.5" machine would be sustainable and it would have to be upgraded.

My information may be out of date.

PE

StoneNYC · Sep 3, 2014

Photo Engineer said:
Reading all of this since I last looked in on it was rather tiring as a first effort on APUG.

However;

Kodak made some of the best glass lenses ever produced in the world. No one but the US govt. could afford them though!

Kodak has several film and paper pilot machines which could be upgraded with minimal work to produce fine quality materials. The film pilot machines range from 21" down to 4.5", and yes, I know that they are in bad shape or even partly / mostly gone, but they did exist and can be refitted if the money was there. With paper, 11" is the widest that can be produced.

My guess is that only a 4.5" machine would be sustainable and it would have to be upgraded.

My information may be out of date.

PE

4.5 inches? Meaning it couldn't coat 8x10 sheet film or even 5x7 sheet film? Only 4x5 and smaller?

And no paper larger than 11x14?

Roger Cole · Sep 4, 2014

While 8x10 would be nice (and can be cut down easily to 5x8 and with only slightly more difficulty to 5x7 if needed) film up to 4x5 would certainly be far better than nothing.

Paper no wider than 11" is a bigger limitation but, again, far better than nothing.

MattKing · Sep 4, 2014

Roger Cole said:
While 8x10 would be nice (and can be cut down easily to 5x8 and with only slightly more difficulty to 5x7 if needed) film up to 4x5 would certainly be far better than nothing.

Paper no wider than 11" is a bigger limitation but, again, far better than nothing.

Kodak Alaris has lots of flexible paper manufacturing capacity.

Ricardo Miranda · Sep 4, 2014

Tom Kershaw said:
Is the Kentmere film any good? I don't use much 35mm at the moment so haven't investigated the line.

Tom

Although not officially sold in the UK, you have the option of buying Ilford Pan 100 and 400 for the same price as the Kentmere films. See The Imaging Warehouse.

Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency