How long do you predict the large format film market to last?

[ziyanglai]

I started digital photography about 6 years ago. And around 1-2 years ago, film photography caught my attention. I started doing more and more research about this dying field of photography. I now have a 4x5 that I only use for B&W, 2 medium formats, and a few 35mm...

So my question is, how long do you predict the film manufacturers to keep making film? I have about $3,000 worth of film equipment gear right now, and it would really suck to have Fuji, Kodak, and Ilford stop making film as the value of those gear would instantly drop down to $10.

I have thought about switching back to digital multiple times( I sold all my digital gear a little over 6 months ago), but I really enjoying the process of film.

Someone please shed some light on this. Thanks..

P.S. I am not as concern about 35mm and MF as large format.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Based on what's in my freezer, and how much I shoot, extrapolating from a sample size of One I get about 15 years' worth left.

Seriously, I think we're bottoming out if we haven't already, every day here there's another "i used to shoot digital now I'm trying out / back to film". We're nearly at the end of E6 (although I've been hearing that for 10 years), C41 will probably last for another decade or two, and I think Ilford will be around for as long as me. I don't think format size makes much difference, slitting a stock is slitting a stock, no matter what size...

 

[CatLABS]

A long, long time.

Film gear is cheap. You currently have at least 4 cameras (or more), for less the the price of one "pro" digital SLR, how can you go wrong?

The more you shoot the longer they will make films.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

LF is various formats is relatively easy to produce, so I predict it will outlive rollfilm, and then we can coat our own plates.

 

[snapguy]

Meet Professor Dexterr

Professor Dexter, so-named because he was extremely informed as to how to use chemistry in the new Photo-GRAPHY over 100 years ago, went into his darkroom and slid glass plates under a pan full of chemicals. He carefully positioned the piece of glass so he could get a "film" of chemicals to coat one side of the glass. He then hung the new piece of "film" out to dry in the darkroom, knowing he would have to shoot the "film" within five hours or it would be no good any more.
I can do that if I have to. I believe there is a new mindset emerging regarding film photography and that it is considered "real art" and "cool" as opposed to digital, the latter considered for the most part on a par with Mr. Eastman's "you push the button, we do the rest," Box Camera DemiArt. And large format is in the vanguard of this revolution, the Army tank among the troops assailing the castle.
Hang onto your Renault tanks and your open-cockpit biplanes and your horse cavalry lances. We have not yet begun to fight.

 

[miha]

Long, but people need to by new. Currently no one is manufacturing mechanical central (leaf) shutters for instance.

 

[vyshemirsky]

Come on, Schneider are still making new lenses and new shutters.

 

[miha]

Shutters were made by Copal.

 

[Steve Smith]

Ten years ago, people were predicting that film had five years left.


Steve.

 

[thegman]

When tapes, CDs, and then MP3s came out, the death of vinyl was predicted each time.

Ilford shows that you don't need to be a big company to make money from film. I think the film market as a whole could still plummet, and there would still be room for some small players.

It's possible that your $3000 worth of film gear could drop in value. With digital, it's guaranteed.

Even the the most pessimistic predictions for film will have it outlast any digital gear you buy now, in terms of value.

Few things last forever, but many will outlast us.

 

[Jesper]

Large format will be with us for a very long time. Speed and ease of use is not of great importance to a LF user so there is no advantage in going digital. It is not a large market but my guess is that it will expand rather than contract in the future.

 

[Gregg Obst]

One thing the OP may consider is that since you shoot primarily B&W on 4x5 you can also shoot X-Ray film and if you are doing your own development, dev it just like any other B&W film. Even with the more expensive single-sided type emulsions like the Kodak Ektascan BR/A which mitigates the concerns about scratches like with double-sided X-Ray film, you are looking at 23 cents a sheet. A 100 sheet box of 8x10 Ektascan BR/A from a place like zzmedical will run you $92 shipped. Cut that down to four 4x5 sheets per 8x10 sheet with a rotary paper cutter, add your own notch with a paper punch so you can tell the emulsion side and you are in a very cheap (comparatively speaking) source of B&W 4x5 film for the foreseeable future, at least until the market for X-Ray film dries up. 400 sheets can last a good long time for some shooters. Plus, since it's an orthochromatic emulsion you can cut it, load it into holders and dev it under a red safelight (11 watts or less) instead of the dark. Easily processed in a Mod54 with Rodinal in semi-stand development. I wouldn't let the perceived market shrinkage be a cause for stifling your own creativity and shooting pursuits.

 

[paul_c5x4]

If the big three cease film production, I'm sure there are a few skilled people that could set up small scale manufacturing - On the last Ilford tour, I was quite taken with the coating machine they use to do test coatings - 200mm wide strips, (typically) two metres long - It wouldn't take much to scale it up to coat longer lengths.

But... We shouldn't forget the companion products that go with film - Paper and the chemicals need to remain in production for film to have a viable market. No point in shooting film if you can't develop it !

As David has pointed out, the LF users also have the option of coating their own plates. But we are slowly seeing the necessary chemicals disappearing from the (amateur) market. Here in Europe, prices have risen sharply, and the range of raw chemicals has dropped in recent years - In some areas, you can no longer purchase methylated spirits over the counter at a chemist.

 

[markbarendt]

Don't think Ilford is going anywhere for many years, IMO probably be the last man standing.

The real question though isn't whether or not you'll lose money on your camera gear (film or digital, that is a given), it is "are you having fun?"

 

[Jesper]

I think Adox will be around for some time alongside Ilford. It may actually be easier for the smaller companies to survive than the large ones.
Chemicals can be mixed at home (I see several threads here on apug) and prints can be done with alternative methods if paper disappears. I'm not worried.

 

[ChuckP]

I'd be more concerned about the cost of film in the future. Price increases may drive more people out of film use so fewer people would want the equipment. Also many LF baby boomers are aging out and their equipment will be on the market. That glut of equipment will probably cause prices to drop. Already a couple boxes of film can cost as much as more common used lenses.

 

[darkosaric]

Thanks to digital one can buy cameras and other equipment for next to nothing.
For price of some medium priced nikon DSLR - one can buy Leica M body with 50mm lens. Digital is great .

Chemicals can be mixed at home (I see several threads here on apug) and prints can be done with alternative methods if paper disappears. I'm not worried.

Just yesterday I did some Liquid emulsion prints, easy, beautiful and lot cheaper that standard FB papers. No worries about the future at all .

 

[dwross]

LF is various formats is relatively easy to produce, so I predict it will outlive rollfilm, and then we can coat our own plates.

...or FILM. Sheet (any size) or roll (except perforated 35mm - for now, at least).

On the one hand I feel like I should apologize for beating on this issue. On the other hand, film is rarely mentioned in these conversations and if it is, as often as not the implication is wet plate, not silver gelatin dry plate.

I give everyone "permission" to put my name on ignore, because I've decided to really hammer away at this issue . People have to know that B&W d.i.y. film (and dry plate) is a reality. It's not difficult to make. It is far less expensive to make than commercial liquid emulsions and of much higher quality. The current top speed recipe is ASA 50-100.

The photo of the pineapple on this page is from handmade 4x5 film. Just a few ingredients, developed in just two ingredients.
http://www.thelightfarm.com/cgi-bin/htmltutgen.py?content=15Jun2013

d

 

[goamules]

I commend you on your excellent work. You have been advocating dryplate for a long time. What surprises me is it seems nobody, or a relative handful, are buying in. I don't know why. When I started wetplate 7 years ago, there were perhaps 10 people in the US doing it. Today, there are probably 10 in every major city, and lots in the country! Europe is even bigger into wetplate, facebook is full of them, there are articles, events, workshops, suppliers, camera makers, it's BIG! Why, does dryplate stagnate? Do you have any links of artists that are using it? A Flickr page "modern dryplates" or other sites?

My suspicion is the "look" is too close to film and digital. And we can still get the former, and everyone does the latter. Wetplate is difficult and results in a lot of flaws. People rebelling against digital love that.

 

[Mike Crawford]

I started doing more and more research about this dying field of photography.

Dying????

The patient seems to be getting better by the month!

All the interest, sustainability and possibility of small scale production of film is fascinating, however, one question is about equipment. Affordable second hand cameras will not last, (or be available), forever and while Lomos and such are being churned out by the ton, what about new, good quality, affordable 35mm and 120s?

I suppose one good thing about 5x4, which is going back to the original question, is that it must be easier to make and sell relatively small quantities of large format compared to Nikon, Canon and Mamiya production lines.

 

[dwross]

goamules,

Thank you. It does indeed seem like I've been advocating for a long time!

I have a few theories about why more people haven't signed on. You've hit on a big one -- the "messy aesthetic". Believe me, diy silver gelatin can be plenty messy! And the thing is, of course, wet plate and tintypes of yore were seldom messy. The practitioners took great care to make lovely plates. The flaws of modern practitioners are a personal choice.

One issue has been APUG itself. Whenever a silver gelatin emulsion thread has started it has usually ended in defeatist rhetoric. Or flights of steam punk fantasy. (I don't know which is more toxic to the conversation.) There may be gender issues involved. I've stopped worrying about the reasons. Mostly, I just intend to shout from the rooftops until at the very least everyone who knows anything about photography is at least aware of handmade silver gelatin emulsions --dry plate, film, and paper.

 

[Steve Smith]

I give everyone "permission" to put my name on ignore, because I've decided to really hammer away at this issue

I would rather have a 'take more notice' option but I can't seem to find where to click for this!


Steve.

 

[Jim Jones]

"Painting is dead from this day," said the artist Paul Delaroche 175 years ago. There may be a greater variety of artist's material readily available today than ever in his lifetime. I might not be able to get preloaded film for my original Univex Mercury, but film for many 100-year-old cameras should be available for a long time. It may not be the same types of film our grandfathers used, but will likely be much better.

 

[MattKing]

Markets are strange things.

They just don't seem to do what people predict.

Buy and use film, and tell those that you encounter.

It might just have an effect on the market.

Or in dwross' case, make and use "film", and tell those that you encounter.

It might just encourage someone to make money making the stuff.

 

[ntenny]

(dry plate and DIY film)

I have a few theories about why more people haven't signed on. You've hit on a big one -- the "messy aesthetic". Believe me, diy silver gelatin can be plenty messy! And the thing is, of course, wet plate and tintypes of yore were seldom messy. The practitioners took great care to make lovely plates. The flaws of modern practitioners are a personal choice.

I suspect, too, that modern practitioners who *don't* want the messy aesthetic are largely content with the existing commercial sources of film. Reasonably so, IMHO; the available films are really good, and even with the number of emulsions that have disappeared in the last couple of decades, the breadth of b&w options is still quite high by historical standards.

As a photographer, why *would* I make my own emulsion and coat my own film? The best answer I can think of is "because it's fun", and that's an excellent answer but not one that will drive everyone to rush to their local gelatin emporium. A lot of people would probably rather just get out and take photos, which is fair enough.

Mostly, I just intend to shout from the rooftops until at the very least everyone who knows anything about photography is at least aware of handmade silver gelatin emulsions --dry plate, film, and paper.

Preach it.

-NT