How much longer can photographic film hold on?

MartinP · May 31, 2011

Rick A said:
Third world countries are ideal places to manufacture film, as they desire jobs and are willing to neglect the environment to secure employment for the population.

So, USA, UK, Germany, Belgium,Czech Republic, Croatia, Japan and China are third world countries? Are there any other countries where film is made (not packaged, actually manufactured, as you mentioned)?

It can be a clean, chemical-manufacturing process and does not need to be dumbed down to "oooo, chemicals are nasty".

I think there will be a continuing reduction in colour-film use, but black-and-white film seems just about 'different' enough to survive. The problem for Kodak (and Fuji) is a lot of their production is for movie prints, with much of the rest being colour films for stills, and those markets are looking a bit fragile right now.

vpwphoto · May 31, 2011

I just get tired of all "oh Ilford should buy Kodak" or this should buy that and this and the
"I want Kodachrome back whiners" Truth be told this has been happening for decades and most of the extinct products are extinct because of utter lack of demand or the advent of a superior or more economically effective product.

I am a car nut too, and people on those sights say oh if only Studebaker, or Packard (Packard was almost revived a decade ago) etc etc. Fact of the matter is if Packard or even Duesenburg returned it would be mostly in name only and all the "oh please" let it be types wouldn't have the money or the balls to buy one.
I say let the market rule, and it will sort it's self out.

I used to use 20 rolls of Kodachrome a month, I moved on to Ektachrome and Fujichrome in the 1990's when Kodachrome just didn't have the look people wanted and when processing started to take a week instead of an overnight trip to Findlay Ohio.

A relative asked me if I cried for Kodachrome's death... I said no, it was dead to me since 1993.

Folks here at APUG recently "wishing for Ektachrome Infra-Red film", probably don't realize it was a $42 (I tried to order some and I think there was a 10 roll minimum order) a roll product back in 1982. If they made it and asked say $65-$70 a roll, I bet most of these "wishers" would run and hide.

benjiboy · May 31, 2011

alapin said:
Check out this article I found today on the net.

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20110530/D9NHUNV00.html

If they are right about Kodak selling, maybe Ilford could buy it. That would be great.

"How long can film photography last ?", It's one of those questions like "have you stopped beating your wife yet?", in order to answer the question you have to accept the basic premise.

Sirius Glass · May 31, 2011

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

RalphLambrecht · May 31, 2011

As long as we will buy enough of it, someone will make it.

2F/2F · May 31, 2011

How much longer can it hold on? We would all love to know...and we will probably see some day! In the meantime, enjoy the hell out of it while it lasts.

zsas · May 31, 2011

Well said 2F. Hope we don't see the end of the line, regardless, like you say, the end is not now anyway - so photograph away my friends!

dpurdy · May 31, 2011

I know one thing, it isn't getting any cheaper. I bought a used freezer off Craigs list and keep buying in as large a bulk as I can. I think I am near lifetime supply now since I am late 50s. I am stocked up on 8x10, 4x5 and 120 film and the money I have saved from avoiding price increases has already paid for the freezer and utility bill about 6 times over. When the Ilford news hit here a couple days ago I immediately when to B&H and bought another 200 sheets 4x5 FP4. When the APX 100 was discontinued I went directly down to the local store and bought 100 rolls. Investing in film has been a great investment over just buying a little at a time.
Dennis

Aristophanes · Jun 1, 2011

dpurdy said:
I know one thing, it isn't getting any cheaper. I bought a used freezer off Craigs list and keep buying in as large a bulk as I can. I think I am near lifetime supply now since I am late 50s. I am stocked up on 8x10, 4x5 and 120 film and the money I have saved from avoiding price increases has already paid for the freezer and utility bill about 6 times over. When the Ilford news hit here a couple days ago I immediately when to B&H and bought another 200 sheets 4x5 FP4. When the APX 100 was discontinued I went directly down to the local store and bought 100 rolls. Investing in film has been a great investment over just buying a little at a time.
Dennis

Someone is thinking like a venture capitalist!

Or survivalist 

CGW · Jun 1, 2011

dpurdy said:
I know one thing, it isn't getting any cheaper. I bought a used freezer off Craigs list and keep buying in as large a bulk as I can. I think I am near lifetime supply now since I am late 50s. I am stocked up on 8x10, 4x5 and 120 film and the money I have saved from avoiding price increases has already paid for the freezer and utility bill about 6 times over. When the Ilford news hit here a couple days ago I immediately when to B&H and bought another 200 sheets 4x5 FP4. When the APX 100 was discontinued I went directly down to the local store and bought 100 rolls. Investing in film has been a great investment over just buying a little at a time.
Dennis

Kodak and Ilford will be thrilled to hear about this.

You need to review the definition of "investment." "Hoarding," too.

RPippin · Jun 1, 2011

In my short (64) years on this planet I've been able to observe two things that seem to happen with regularity. Both politics and trends follow a predictable pattern, that is to say the pendulum that swings in one direction will always come to a point and swing back the other way. Digital is still a new technology to those of us who were around when there were no cell phones, Ipads or personal computers. It also seems to me when I check online that there is still a great deal of film and choices for film around, probably more so than when I first started shooting film. One of the problems with the internet, as I see it, is that we get way to much information and every piece we get we have to react to. Rubbish, I say. At least at my age I can expect to shoot film till I can't anymore, but for the younger guys out there, just keep your eyes and ears open and see. Probably if you keep buying the stuff, someone will keep making it. Don't even get me started on politics. I look at every dollar I spend as a political statement.

vpwphoto · Jun 1, 2011

True that RPippin!
Again I think hoarding and freezing might be prudent for the individual, but it could make a couple lean years too lean for a few manufacturers.

railwayman3 · Jun 1, 2011

vpwphoto said:
True that RPippin!
Again I think hoarding and freezing might be prudent for the individual, but it could make a couple lean years too lean for a few manufacturers.

So which is best if a manufacturer is struggling? Assuming I can afford it, do I go out and buy 10 years supply of film today and freeze it, giving them income and profit now....or do I just buy one film a week for the next 10 years, if, of course, it's still available for that time?

My understanding is that quantity discounts (even down to those on the small scale of three-for-two offers at the supermarket) are basically intended to get product out now, reduce handling costs, clear warehouse space and get cash in.

And, if I feel that I've got a fair deal, maybe I'll be happy to use the film or other product more generously than it I have to scrimp and save to pay for every frame?

Economics isn't a simple or exact science.......

CGW · Jun 1, 2011

railwayman3 said:
So which is best if a manufacturer is struggling? Assuming I can afford it, do I go out and buy 10 years supply of film today and freeze it, giving them income and profit now....or do I just buy one film a week for the next 10 years, if, of course, it's still available for that time?

My understanding is that quantity discounts (even down to those on the small scale of three-for-two offers at the supermarket) are basically intended to get product out now, reduce handling costs, clear warehouse space and get cash in.

And, if I feel that I've got a fair deal, maybe I'll be happy to use the film or other product more generously than it I have to scrimp and save to pay for every frame?

Economics isn't a simple or exact science.......

Film sales have already cratered, so whatever you do isn't likely to have much impact.

railwayman3 · Jun 1, 2011

CGW said:
Film sales have already cratered, so whatever you do isn't likely to have much impact.

Indeed, my tiny contribution is negligible one way or another. So I guess the answer is, (above all!) to buy, use and enjoy as much film as you need and can still afford, hoard if you can, and try not to worry.

ArtTwisted · Jun 1, 2011

the more companies go out of business the better for the remainder of the market. On top of that, as far as colour is concerned its still backed by the massive Hollywood business, at least for a few more years.

Film isint going anywhere, colour will most likely eventually die out unless Hollywood makes the commitment to stay with film long term which is eventually doubtful , black and white will have no issues. If Efke and Foma can survive with current demand, imagine when a giant like Kodak, Fuji, or even Ilford (please no) was to close the doors, they would be flooded with business. Foma alone could keep the market alive, they make film, paper, and chemistry.

CGW · Jun 1, 2011

If Efke and Foma can survive with current demand, imagine when a giant like Kodak, Fuji, or even Ilford (please no) was to close the doors, they would be flooded with business. Foma alone could keep the market alive, they make film, paper, and chemistry.

Doubtful. If true, they'd inherit a market smaller and less stable than today's(that's why Kodak would have bailed in your future scenario, right?). Market share is pretty much meaningless if demand is trending steadily down as it appears to be now. We're all hoping it at least stabilizes, holds, and even grows slightly in the next few years. Who knows?

RPippin · Jun 1, 2011

EGADS!!! Chicken Little was right! One foot in the past and one foot in the future means your pissing all over the present. Shoot film now, buy enough for a month or two when the price is right, and hope to hell you have enough tomorrows left to really have something to worry about! Better yet, spread the word, loan out cameras and film, put on a workshop or two.

railwayman3 · Jun 1, 2011

CGW said:
If Efke and Foma can survive with current demand, imagine when a giant like Kodak, Fuji, or even Ilford (please no) was to close the doors, they would be flooded with business. Foma alone could keep the market alive, they make film, paper, and chemistry.

Doubtful. If true, they'd inherit a market smaller and less stable than today's(that's why Kodak would have bailed in your future scenario, right?). Market share is pretty much meaningless if demand is trending steadily down as it appears to be now. We're all hoping it at least stabilizes, holds, and even grows slightly in the next few years. Who knows?

Hmmmm....I think I have to agree with that. If we were down to just one-or-two small makers, there are the major issues of reasonably efficient distribution (not necessarily orders delivered in a day, but not having to wait a year for the next coating of a particular product!) and also reasonably affordable prices. Many of us are willing to pay premium prices to get and maintain our analog supplies, but each increase can only tend to force out a few users every time.

There is also the question of where digital might go from here...who knows what developments and improvements might come to make it more acceptable and attractive, if not to we diehards, maybe to the younger users. If doubtful, we only have to look back about 15 to 20 years....anyone remember the Sony Mavica, with a built-in floppy disc drive to record a few low resolution B&W digital shots? Not that long ago?

Steve Smith · Jun 1, 2011

RPippin said:
EGADS!!! Chicken Little was right!

I have often wondered why the story is called Chicken Little in the US whereas it was originally known as Chicken Licken. The other characters in the story are Turkey Lurkey, Henny Penny, Cocky Locky, Goosey Loosey, Foxy loxy, Ducky Lucky and Drakey Lakey. So to change Chicken Licken to Chicken Little doesn't make much sense as it doesn't fit with the rest of the characters' names.

Anyway.... back to whatever it was we were talking about.... Oh yes, film... Buy lots of it!

Steve.

Ektagraphic · Jun 1, 2011

I am not overly thrilled by the looks of this. Maybe extreme consolidation is for the better since it will make them the most profit and would help keep film coming out of Kodak. If this article is accurate, and Kodak is doing better than Fuji is with film, let's continue to show Kodak what film shooters are made of!

Steve Smith · Jun 2, 2011

Whilst there are reports of American cinemas converting to digital, I get the impression that the majority of US cinemas are owned by large corporations who can afford the capital expenditure on the digital equipment.

In the UK and probably much of Europe, cinemas are either privately owned or owned by smaller companies who could not and do not want to spend the hundreds of thousands of pounds or euros necessary to convert when the projectors they already own will do the job, especially when it could be obsolete in a few years when a higher quality system is available.

If movie film is keeping film companies in business then it is the multiple copies for distribution which is the major user of film rather than originating the footage.

Steve.

michaelbsc · Jun 2, 2011

Steve Smith said:
Whilst there are reports of American cinemas converting to digital, I get the impression that the majority of US cinemas are owned by large corporations who can afford the capital expenditure on the digital equipment.

In the UK and probably much of Europe, cinemas are either privately owned or owned by smaller companies who could not and do not want to spend the hundreds of thousands of pounds or euros necessary to convert when the projectors they already own will do the job, especially when it could be obsolete in a few years when a higher quality system is available.

If movie film is keeping film companies in business then it is the multiple copies for distribution which is the major user of film rather than originating the footage.

Steve.

This is correct.

While I am not all too familiar with the industry, I fear that loss of the distribution market will undermine the substrate manufacturing. So even could one run very small coating sessions, you still must be able to purchase substrate.

adam h · Jun 2, 2011

RPippin said:
In my short (64) years on this planet I've been able to observe two things that seem to happen with regularity. Both politics and trends follow a predictable pattern, that is to say the pendulum that swings in one direction will always come to a point and swing back the other way. Digital is still a new technology to those of us who were around when there were no cell phones, Ipads or personal computers. It also seems to me when I check online that there is still a great deal of film and choices for film around, probably more so than when I first started shooting film. One of the problems with the internet, as I see it, is that we get way to much information and every piece we get we have to react to. Rubbish, I say. At least at my age I can expect to shoot film till I can't anymore, but for the younger guys out there, just keep your eyes and ears open and see. Probably if you keep buying the stuff, someone will keep making it. Don't even get me started on politics. I look at every dollar I spend as a political statement.

Please, "get started." Let me hear your opionion

Aristophanes · Jun 2, 2011

Steve Smith said:
Whilst there are reports of American cinemas converting to digital, I get the impression that the majority of US cinemas are owned by large corporations who can afford the capital expenditure on the digital equipment.

In the UK and probably much of Europe, cinemas are either privately owned or owned by smaller companies who could not and do not want to spend the hundreds of thousands of pounds or euros necessary to convert when the projectors they already own will do the job, especially when it could be obsolete in a few years when a higher quality system is available.

If movie film is keeping film companies in business then it is the multiple copies for distribution which is the major user of film rather than originating the footage.

Steve.

Box office revenues are declining as a percentage of total sales as post-release digital distribution trumps.

Soon the Euro cinemas will have to switch or become irrelevant as they become both a weak link and bypassed cost centre.

One thing that is not happening that perhaps should is the one-roof concept that sustained and grew the industry in it's early decades: film, camera, optics (to some extent), and development/printing all vested within a corporate supplier or two. Vertical integration and consolidation might even be a Boardroom discussion at Kodak for all we know. There's an abundance if sunk cost IP out there to build a model, and history to boot.

How much longer can photographic film hold on?

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency