Imagine if you will....

[davetravis]

OK, here's what I will do.
I will collect, dry, and arrange leaves and flowers.
Mount them onto board, present them in a shadow box, and call the portfolio
"Potential."
Then I will retire into my darkroom and print like hell, until my slides are all faded...
DT

 

[Photo Engineer]

Dear PE,

You are of course right, especially about the accuracy and reliability. But let's take baryta paper as a simple example, where the real choice today is Felix Schoeller or Mitsubishi -- and I don't know anyone in Europe who buys from Mitsubishi. I am however told that the old Guilleminot baryta paper coater is still in use, slightly modified as it is not being used for baryta coating.

Now, barium sulphate is not hard to source, and nor is paper base, and I believe it would be possible to put together a consortium to coat baryta; but it would obviously be easier to keep Schoeller coating the stuff. It's that kind of thing -- and of course film base -- that I was referring to. Arcane chemicals can usually be synthesized (at a price, barring environmental objections) but film base production is another matter. I believe (though I do not know) that there are enough other applications for film base that it is not endangered; but I have also heard assertions to the contrary. Another endangered species is roll-film backing paper.

Plates can be coated on an artisanal basis, again at a price, but roll-film is more of a problem, and if any film goes, I fear 120 may be the first casualty. I don't think it will happen, but unlike 35mm and LF and plates, I am prepared to accept that it might happen.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, unfortunately there appears to be enough evidence in posts here on APUG that Schoeller baryta paper quality is varying a bit. I have experienced that myself. It is hard to make, and the rollers suffer a lot of wear due to the heavy pressure needed during the calendaring operation.

Again, this contrubtes to product variability at the end of the emulsion coating operation.

Film base in the required thicknesses and paper base are suffering from having few sources of supply, and you are right that 120 and 220 paper backing is becoming hard to get.

Yes, we may all end up coating our camera speed emulsions on glass plates. Maybe Dave Parker will be able to make them and the plate holders for the different cameras.

PE

 

[blansky]

I would simply convert to shooting digitally. I'm a photographer. I don't have any special fetish for what the materials are for that art/craft.

I use analog now because it's what I like the look and feel of. If it was no longer available, I would use what is available.

The process is only a means to an end.


Michael

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Oddly enough, I find myself agreeing with Michael. I make my living with photography, quite happy with film results, as are my clients. The only way this could get too difficult is when processing turnaround gets too slow, as became the case with Kodachrome. I get E-6 done locally in under 3 hours, but I could live with a two or three days turnaround if needed.

The hypothetical situation is completely unrealistic. As long as some company can make money off producing and selling films, they will be made somewhere by some company. Bostick & Sullivan undoubtedly profit from selling unusual alternative process materials, and either they or some other company will follow that lead, if that time ever comes.

Consider also that as a painter, I can still buy oil paints from several different suppliers. None of them are cheap. I can easily imagine that there are vastly fewer people doing oil paintings today than there will be photographers using film in 2015. I keep reading this same crap about five years from now, ten years from now, twenty years from now . . . honestly, if people are that stressed out about it, they should give up today . . . and don't look back.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[mark]

I might actually break down and get a credit card, to buy what I needed to do the wet plate stuff, and digital.

But I am in no hurry to get a credit card. No credit cards anymore has been a blessing.

 

[MattKing]

I might actually break down and get a credit card, to buy what I needed to do the wet plate stuff, and digital.

But I am in no hurry to get a credit card. No credit cards anymore has been a blessing.

I would expect that if analog photographic materials disappear, many other things will too, including the use of cash and cheques.

 

[Bromo33333]

Plates can be coated on an artisanal basis, again at a price, but roll-film is more of a problem, and if any film goes, I fear 120 may be the first casualty. I don't think it will happen, but unlike 35mm and LF and plates, I am prepared to accept that it might happen.

For goodness' sake - you can still buy instamatic film, minox film, 8mm, super 8! I doubt we'll lose 120 and 135 films anytime soon! The first casualty will be instamatic!

Plates can be made by the photogrpaher - no "artisinal" requirement whatsoever. :rolleyes:

The mass market for film is shrinking - big deal - this is not news. It does not mean that film is going to go away entirely, and in fact I would expect *growth* in some areas of film once the panic settles down.

Recall - that with CD and LP from 1985-1990 LP sales shrunk and lots were discontinued, then it stabilized 1990-1998, and is growing since! Film will be the same.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

If film could no longer be begged, bought, or stolen, I would more than likely stop photographing and concentrate on drawing and music as my outlets. I've played with digital enough to know that it is not a suitable form of self-expression for me.

Not that I ever expect to encounter this situation.

 

[Shane Knight]

I would sleep in.

 

[Dorothy Blum Cooper]

Many beautiful photographs were made in the nineteenth-century before film was an industrial product. I'll just coat my own. I'm already set up to shoot 5x7" and 4x5" glass plates, if need be.

...what he said.

 

[wilsonneal]

I am not worried about my ability to find, buy or make the materials necessary to create photographic images. I am more worried/frustrated that my kids have zero interest in analog. A house full of cameras, a darkroom, and a knowledge resource, and they just cannot see the point. They're not Philistines...they know good music, good literature, and they can recognize and even create good images. They just don't care about the processes that keep me up at night. To me, that's what's scary. It probably means that 30 years from now there'll be a lot less Traditional work being done. I hope I am wrong, of course.
Neal

 

[Roger Hicks]

For goodness' sake - you can still buy instamatic film, minox film, 8mm, super 8! I doubt we'll lose 120 and 135 films anytime soon! The first casualty will be instamatic!

Plates can be made by the photogrpaher - no "artisinal" requirement whatsoever. :rolleyes:

The mass market for film is shrinking - big deal - this is not news. It does not mean that film is going to go away entirely, and in fact I would expect *growth* in some areas of film once the panic settles down.

Recall - that with CD and LP from 1985-1990 LP sales shrunk and lots were discontinued, then it stabilized 1990-1998, and is growing since! Film will be the same.

I fear you are slightly missing my point, which was that 120 backing paper is increasingly hard to source. With the concentration of some of the raw or base materials in the hands of a single manufacturer, if that manufacturer decides it is no longer profitable, no-one can make the product any more. A good example is Felix Schoeller's discontinuation of single-weight paper base, even though photographic paper manufacturers were willing to go on coating it.

As for 'artisanal', we have different understandings of the word. To me, 'artisanal' is a means of manufacture distinct from 'mass production'. I cannot see why the photographer who coats his own plates is not described as an artisan; my point was that it can be a cottage industry.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Bromo33333]

I fear you are slightly missing my point, which was that 120 backing paper is increasingly hard to source. With the concentration of some of the raw or base materials in the hands of a single manufacturer, if that manufacturer decides it is no longer profitable, no-one can make the product any more. A good example is Felix Schoeller's discontinuation of single-weight paper base, even though photographic paper manufacturers were willing to go on coating it.

Got it. I think the supply chain is going to go through some serious disruption during this whole transition - and 120 film roll backing may become difficult to source. If there is enough interest - couldn't a group make it anyway? It doesn't look to me to be terirbly complicated (though the devil is always in the details).

I get your point - though while we shouldn't remian complascent, I wonder how difficult it would be to have companies and groups start to fill in these gaps?

As for 'artisanal', we have different understandings of the word. To me, 'artisanal' is a means of manufacture distinct from 'mass production'. I cannot see why the photographer who coats his own plates is not described as an artisan; my point was that it can be a cottage industry.

I get your point - though I think we are talking past each other - if a phtographer coats his or her on plates while it may be artisinal, it is hardly remarkable since a lot of photogrpahy started this way with the photographer making all of their own materials or at least do a lot of pre and post processing.

But, I also agree that film could easily be made on a small scale, though it proimises to be pricey - which doesn't bother me as long as I can afford it. Might make me pay closer attention to my pictures!

 

[Mark_S]

I wonder if 140 years ago, the APUG (Artistic Painters Users Group) fretted over the demise of oil paints as photography began to encroach on the traditional portrait market. Will we be able to buy canvas, what about pigments and turpentine? Will watercolour paints be the first to go? - The market has changed, but I have faith that for the rest of my lifetime, I will have no problem purchasing film and paper.

 

[John Bartley]

that the day that you have long dreaded has arrived. April 12 2015. After this day there will be NO MORE FILM. ... Gone.
You stand naked in a bleak landscape. How do you escape? How do you satisfy your soul? What is your solution? Show us how creative you will be. Find a way.

Take up woodworking with hand tools ....

 

[Roger Hicks]

It doesn't look to me to be terirbly complicated (though the devil is always in the details).

I get your point - though while we shouldn't remian complascent, I wonder how difficult it would be to have companies and groups start to fill in these gaps?
QUOTE]


Making backing paper is apparently a lot harder than it looks, now that the fastest films are a over a hundred times more sensitive than when 120 was introduced over a century ago. A few years back even Ilford was really worried about this one.

The problem is that a lot of small companies used to make all kinds of things like this, very 'inefficiently'. They slowly consolidated and were taken over, and although the economies of scale made it easier and cheaper to make big runs, they also removed all the profit from small runs, until a 'small run' wasn't worth making. That's what happened to single-weight paper base. We're also seeing heavy consolidation in the photographic chemicals industry at the moment: when Champion quit the UK, that was the end of both Paterson and Fotospeed E6, and they probably won't be reintroduced.

A surprising number of these things, too, rely on knowing how to do something because you've done it all your life. Yes, you might well be able to nail together the expertise to make backing paper on a small scale -- but it might take a long time to put together the team who knew how, and some of them might prefer a secure, boring job elsewhere.

If there's enough warning, the problems can be overcome. If someone like Schoeller suddenly dropped out, it would be a very different matter.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Aggie]

It doesn't look to me to be terirbly complicated (though the devil is always in the details).

I get your point - though while we shouldn't remian complascent, I wonder how difficult it would be to have companies and groups start to fill in these gaps?
QUOTE]


Making backing paper is apparently a lot harder than it looks, now that the fastest films are a over a hundred times more sensitive than when 120 was introduced over a century ago. A few years back even Ilford was really worried about this one.

The problem is that a lot of small companies used to make all kinds of things like this, very 'inefficiently'. They slowly consolidated and were taken over, and although the economies of scale made it easier and cheaper to make big runs, they also removed all the profit from small runs, until a 'small run' wasn't worth making. That's what happened to single-weight paper base. We're also seeing heavy consolidation in the photographic chemicals industry at the moment: when Champion quit the UK, that was the end of both Paterson and Fotospeed E6, and they probably won't be reintroduced.

A surprising number of these things, too, rely on knowing how to do something because you've done it all your life. Yes, you might well be able to nail together the expertise to make backing paper on a small scale -- but it might take a long time to put together the team who knew how, and some of them might prefer a secure, boring job elsewhere.

If there's enough warning, the problems can be overcome. If someone like Schoeller suddenly dropped out, it would be a very different matter.

Cheers,

R.

I don't know about the rest of ya'll, but I'm so tired of the gloom and doom predictions. Armed with the insider info I have, and knowing where and who is the future of more than just the end manufacturering of film and paper, but the suppliers of the future of the base products, I'm not worried one bit. There are sources only a handful of us right now know about that are being worked on. Have your pity party and feel depressed. I for one feel very good about the future. It looks damn bright and the light for my shooting will fall on film for the rest of my life. BTW for those who are wondering, my family seems to all live to be over 100 so you're stuck with me for a very longggggggggg time.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I wonder if 140 years ago, the APUG (Artistic Painters Users Group) fretted over the demise of oil paints as photography began to encroach on the traditional portrait market. Will we be able to buy canvas, what about pigments and turpentine? Will watercolour paints be the first to go? - The market has changed, but I have faith that for the rest of my lifetime, I will have no problem purchasing film and paper.

They didn't fret as most of the masters knew how to make everything that they needed. After all, they were true artists and craftsmen.

Are we no different than they?

PE

 

[Roger Hicks]

I don't know about the rest of ya'll, but I'm so tired of the gloom and doom predictions. Armed with the insider info I have, and knowing where and who is the future of more than just the end manufacturering of film and paper, but the suppliers of the future of the base products, I'm not worried one bit. There are sources only a handful of us right now know about that are being worked on. Have your pity party and feel depressed. I for one feel very good about the future. It looks damn bright and the light for my shooting will fall on film for the rest of my life. BTW for those who are wondering, my family seems to all live to be over 100 so you're stuck with me for a very longggggggggg time.

Dear Aggie,

There's a difference between a 'pity party' and a realistic assessment of what's available and how to fill possible gaps. Presumably you are party to information not shared by several major manufacturers of my acquaintance about what will remain available and for how long.

I've just come back from photokina where I talked at length with several film and paper manufacturers; my comments are based on these conversations. Like you, they and I believe that film and paper will be about for a long time yet. That is not the same as believing that the road will not be bumpy at times, or of pointing out where the bumps may lie.

Cheers,

Roger

 

[Bromo33333]

Dear Aggie,

There's a difference between a 'pity party' and a realistic assessment of what's available and how to fill possible gaps. Presumably you are party to information not shared by several major manufacturers of my acquaintance about what will remain available and for how long.

I've just come back from photokina where I talked at length with several film and paper manufacturers; my comments are based on these conversations. Like you, they and I believe that film and paper will be about for a long time yet. That is not the same as believing that the road will not be bumpy at times, or of pointing out where the bumps may lie.

The whole thing reminds me of the CD and LP "debate" in the 1980's. Lots of people panicking and "going digital" and dumping their records and recordplayers. Like cameras - the record companies loved CD's since they could get everyone to re-buy all of their music on the new medium and they could charge $15-20 per album rather than the $8 for a LP - just like how the camera makers get to convince people to buy another camera every 3 years now!

The LP industry went into a long slump that it has been growing out of the last 10 years. Though there are dedicated "audiophile" labels that produced selected albums the entire time. The revival is led (ironically) by the younger 20-something "MP3" generation!

Even if we lose one emulsion or another - don't think that a close analog will be found someday when analog film grows again! I will even expect 35mm film cameras to revive. And I doubt film will slump to the degree as records since many professional applications haven't yet been matched by digital.

 

[Daniel_OB]

"April 12 2015. After this day there will be NO MORE FILM. All the manufacturers have thrown in the towel."

You can see future? My ball say this: two days before that some aliens will come and bring agfa back to the Planet. Three days before that some huge comet will visit the Planet and all will burst as never existed, but aliens that will come after that will escape with agfa film. How is that? Ah could you please give me some 7 numbers just a two weeks ahead?

Guy, do you know how many photographers were around in 1949 say? They never talk about film and who make 'em. And always will be around more photographers than in say 1949. This mass consuming will not last just for anything not just for film. Sausages are included too.

Hex, what sculptors will do if film disappears?

Film is tool for "something". If something else can do the same think as film, then film got competition. But it has to be really the same. Are they? Or no one will ever more need to record anything else for the future, because he believe in comet visit.
Car makers are in bigger trouble. Look on the road: oversaturated 100%. and still every week a million new cars comes on the road just in US. How about gasoline, food, water,....

Joke on side but do you know only one reason that film will ever disappear? (Kodak is out menyta in,….). I think that film manufacturing is in very good future comparing with anything you see around yourself, yuor shoes included.


www.Leica-R.com

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Hello Roger,

Making backing paper is apparently a lot harder than it looks, now that the fastest films are a over a hundred times more sensitive than when 120 was introduced over a century ago. A few years back even Ilford was really worried about this one.
. . . . . . . . .

Coming at this from a commercial printing background, knowledge of papers and printing inks, I politely disagree. There is not much to printing the backing paper for 120 roll films, keeping them opaque, and having the numbers in the correct locations. Now there might be an issue of cost, or assembling the film onto the paper backing, but those are economic issues.

So basically, how big a press is needed, and what volume? My guess is that the companies doing this are unhappy about a reduction of volume, and might want to use there presses for other runs of more profitable printing. In such a situation, the prices for backing paper would go up, meaning the film costs would increase.

Compare this to currencies around the world. Only a handful of companies print currencies or make paper for currencies. Surely these are limited supply, but we are not running out of money.


Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[Photo Engineer]

Interesting discussion about backing paper here.

If it is so easy to make, then why are there complaints about some people getting fogged images of the printing on their film? It is because it isn't easy to make!

I respectfully disagree with those saying it is easy. It must be opaque and have both a black surface and printed surface that is inactive to film and which will not bleed ink and solvents into the film. This is a difficult project to undertake and is overly simplified here by those who know nothing about it.

Sorry.

PE

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Okay Photo Engineer, let's take this further. What chemicals in printing inks react with film?

Most people might consider offset lithography, though I would have to imagine roto gravure as the printing choice for roll film backing paper. In roto gravure, the inks are almost instantly dry, meaning that in a multi-colour run, the next ink goes onto a dry surface of the previous ink; very different from offset in which a wet ink is applied to a nearly wet previous ink.

Seriously, I have tons of contacts in the printing industry. My guess is the problems are largely economic, since a high speed roto gravure press needs lots of runs to keep it profitable. If there are current backing papers with problems, that seems to me to be a quality control issue. How high tech can the ink and papers be when roll films have been around for decades, what is so special or proprietary that no other printing places can produce it?

There have also been many advances and changes in the paper industry. Many papers are now 80% to 98% opaque. There are also numerous sythetic papers now on the market too, though at a slightly higher cost than more traditional papers. There are also new UV inks, heatset inks, and other choices. It is possible today to make printed menus on none tearing paper that can resist grease, oil, food, and water, then be wiped clean for further continued usage, all without staining permanently.

I would gladly admit to being very wrong, but you have to give me very specific reasons why that is so. Obviously, some companies are currently printing the backing papers, unless it is for some odd reason only done in one place in the world, by one company, with a patent on some special ink.

There is an annual printing industry trade show that will be near me again in January/February time frame. I would be happy to field any set of parameters and specifications through the various paper companies to come up with viable alternatives to current processes. Given whatever information is needed, I can get quotes for Kodak, Fuji, Ilford or any other company that might want to know alternatives. There are large presses not running at capacity that would likely be happy to take work from the current companies that sound like they might not be interested in doing this roll film paper printing any more.

I enjoy reading the various contributions you have provided here at APUG. If there are specific materials that need to be avoided, or other aspects that need to be met, you can provide me a very specific set of guidelines. With your knowledge of chemistry, it should be simple (I hope) for you to draw up specifications.

As an alternative, what is your feeling on recycling these backing papers? The paper industry is very environmentally conscious, with many current papers coming from recycled post consumer waste paper.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Dead Link Removed

 

[Photo Engineer]

Gordon;

I really don't have specifics on this. I was only 'taught' this in a course at Kodak many years ago, and it was often reinforced, as we often tested different papers with black backing and printed images.

Among other things, these papers would stick to the film back, film emulsion, cause too much static when spooling or unspooling, leave inked numbers on the film and allow too much light through.

So, the paper to start with would have to have a density of about 3.0 to 6.0 by transmission measurement, and yet be as thin as current paper. The black material must not have any solvents in it. Carbon black contains solvents and sulfur compounds that make it largely unusable unless it is specially treated (IIRC).

The printed numbers must not bleed onto the film emulsion layer, and the inks must be free of any dye that will desensitize film. I remember in particular one set of inks left an image on the film even when the film was stored in the dark. It apparently gradually fogged the film on contact.

So, while I cannot give you specific inks or 'blackening' materials (opacifiers we called them), I can cite examples of problems that I knew about. But, frankly, this was way outside my area and I only got into it very indirectly. We had a whole department that handled this.

PE