- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 89
- Format
- 35mm
Integral film has a film negative in it.
Interesting thread. I am glad that Instax has been so successful for Fuji. I wish that the Fuji packfilms were in such high demand too! It would be a dream for them to start making a new packfilm camera!
It still manages to amaze me that Fuji discontinued their cine products, and still are able to keep their film coating operation running- as far as I have understood, Instax film does not have a negative, so that would not play a part in keeping the coater running(?)
Who suggested throwing away your digital devices? I'm typing on one right now, and don't intend on throwing it away either.
You should re-consider the DSLR purchase. Unless you have lenses that you have to use for it, you are well advised to look to the mirrorless models. The mirror has been made obsolete for digicams. Smaller better are the 4/3rds cameras.
I hear a lot of people say digital is better for low light... I guess this is for the switchable ISO and antishake with long shutter speeds. These are camera features that compensate the photographer and assist the photographer to not underexpose and the need for a steady camera. True there are no high ISO films, but a 400 film can be used with a fast lens, and if you pre-flash the film so it sets the film just before the silver reacts to light. There's info on how to do this pre-flashing of film, and if you then do say -4 of 400 ISO, you'd have 6400 ISO film shots that you would push process 4 stops, or simply semi-stand process for an hour. But honestly, film and flash is the way to go so there's no "low light" shooting. Besides, who wants shots with no light in them, I mean "low light." Even digital cameras tell you to use a flash instead of long exposures and high ISOs.
Cool you support digital and go on to promote large format film plate shooting...
If you have any digital device, be it a m4/3 or that Leica M9 or something like that, throw it away. Force yourself to use only film. Tell others to do the same. Ban digi-devices from your house.
Is it hard?
Then don't come complain when Kodak or Fuji drop another film or 2.
If you don't use it enough, you'll loose it.
Henning, do not overlook that among those "experts" are not only people who have life long experience in the photochemical industry, past time knowledge as you seem to consider, but also who stand for creating jobs and actual, current millions of film-revenue. Apug has a wide scope of members.
You made an interesting remark about Kodak Alaris. But then I miss any film promotion on their side.
Henning,
Look at the price of Fuji's 400H compared to Portra 400. This massive difference in price is probably related to the fact that Fuji has no cine film.
Their color film prices are going up very fast with another increase coming next month.
Very good post. I am however compelled to make a quick observation regarding the above.
The "cine film is needed by Kodak to continue..." and the "Kodak will never be able to downsize and survive..." mindsets on APUG are largely a direct result of sustained input from several ex-employees of Kodak who have been active here. Those on the outside of Kodak understandably had no way of knowing what was happening, and so have merely listened to and repeated what those who are/were on the inside have continually insisted is/was the truth.
So what am I doing myself to help the situation today?
Well, in three days my first ever home-processing Fuji-Hunt E-6 kit ships. And unlike previous years this summer has thus far been exclusively an E-6 transparency season for me. Within the last month I have purchased 50 rolls of Provia 100F/400X. (Doing a little stocking-up on the 400X to give Ferrania a little more breathing room to get going and maybe eventually offer their own.)
Apug is a forum for users to discuss things relevant to them. This includes the future of the own medium, its supplies, the manufacturers. This should be especially true in a industry subforum.
If Kodak are indeed using 300 staff for their Rochester coater that is disappointing cause their older machine at Kodak Harrow UK made about 400 people redundant in 2004 when the film line was closed.
I suggest the power level of your reality distortion helmet is set so high it is upsetting my nostalgia syndrome at range.
It still manages to amaze me that Fuji discontinued their cine products, and still are able to keep their film coating operation running- as far as I have understood, Instax film does not have a negative, so that would not play a part in keeping the coater running(?)
Our esteemed APUG member Photo Engineer has stated that Kodak is so oversized that they could coat the entire world's consumption of film in a SINGLE day (minus product change over time).
Ilford and hopefully Ferrania are the future of film. Not Fuji and certainly not Kodak.
Honestly, I have severe doubts that PE has ever said that because it is total nonsense. If you look only at photo film production and even exclude all the production of cine film, technical films like PCB, x-ray, archiving film etc., then you see at once that that is impossible:
Take the current global photo film market with about 120 - 150 million films p.a..
And a 5 five days a week production at Kodak. Then you get even with the lowest figure about 30 billions (!!) films p.a..
The world record in photo film production was 3 billion units in 2000.
And that with lots of big film production factories all over the world.
Let's hope and work for a future of film which is not only dependant on Ilford and Ferrania.
Because it would mean
- a BW film and paper monopoly with Ilford; monopolies are never good, a market do need a fair competition
- no highest quality colour films anymore: Fujifilm and Kodak are a league of its own concerning the outstanding quality of their color films; Ferrania is not on the same level, and cannot be in the foreseeable future.
Just use some of the last Ferrania films and compare them to Provia 100F, Velvia, Pro 400H or the Portras. You will see at once what I mean.
I have greatest respect for the Film Ferrania Team. I support them and wish them succes. I've visited the factory.
But I am a realist:
Film Ferrania neither want nor can replace Fuji's and Kodak's color film production entirely. They can be a supplement to the market, and a very important one: Filling market gaps (there are enough of them).
Best regards,
Henning
I could be wrong, but I recall that the comment that RattyMouse de-contextualised was to do with Kodachrome. Specifically, I think it was along the lines that a year's worth of Kodachrome (at late 90s demand) could be coated in a day & was intended to show that it was not a high demand product.
Let's hope and work for a future of film which is not only dependant on Ilford and Ferrania.
Because it would mean
- a BW film and paper monopoly with Ilford; monopolies are never good, a market do need a fair competition
Well, I am in regular contact with lots of those who are currently working in the film business. And these people have never shared the simplified "film is dead" attitude of the self-proclaimed "experts" here on apug.
They know the problems of the market better than any other. But they also know the chances and future potential.
https://www.facebook.com/kodakprofessional
Just one example.
They are doing some conventional advertising, too (even in Germany).
Regards,
Henning
I could be wrong, but I recall that the comment that RattyMouse de-contextualised was to do with Kodachrome. Specifically, I think it was along the lines that a year's worth of Kodachrome (at late 90s demand) could be coated in a day & was intended to show that it was not a high demand product.
In reality, Ilford would be competing with digital. If Ilford's prices or quality were not competitive, people would stop using their products and instead shoot digital.
And I shoot film because I've not got a digital camera that I can use.
In reality, Ilford would be competing with digital.
This is a pathetic amount of "marketing". Do you have any idea how many times I've been asked "Can you still buy film?"
A few facebook posts arent going to change that perception.
They haven't made a mechanical Digi camera, yet.
Dear XO Whiplock...
I am not a 'film is dead' guy, in fact rather the opposite...
Your list contains so many errors on so many levels as to be irrelevant.
BUT We have manufacturers of film and paper, both monochrome and colour... and we will always have manufacturers.
Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :
Wrong. People don't compare film to anything but film (film shooters anyway). If someone is shooting film, they are shooting film. They have a digital camera already and if they are thinking "digital" it's in relation to which camera to grab for the day. Not every day will be film and not every day will be digital. Why is there this insistence that we be either long pants or short pants wearing everyday? but can't wear both whenever we want? To me, film is a choice and a lifestyle decision based on appetite. I wear what I want when I want on my days off (not working and being told what to wear). Not everyone is controlled by "the machine" even on their days off.In reality, Ilford would be competing with digital. If Ilford's prices or quality were not competitive, people would stop using their products and instead shoot digital.
This is a pathetic amount of "marketing". Do you have any idea how many times I've been asked "Can you still buy film?"
Noel,
1. The number was published by Kodak.
2. All the critics here like you have claimed over the years that Kodak must scale down getting closer to the "Ilford business model". Now they have done it and you are saying that is disappointing.
You are contradicting yourself.
Regards,
Henning
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?