Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Agulliver]

3000 rolls a night in the heyday does sound like a medium sized lab running a few machines. The big labs were huge. I was lucky enough to grow up near PTP (Photo Trade Processing) in Stevenage, UK. They handled the national processing for Dixons and for ProntaPrint mail order. The place was vast. I could not even estimate how many machines and employees they had.

Then you have the one person operations, like my local one. One machine, possibly not running every day....but running several times a week to keep everything fresh.

Most of the huge labs are gone because they relied on sheer volume. The profit margins were small but making pennies per film processed didn't matter when you were literally processing millions.

 

[bfilm]

Yes, the investment is large. Refurbished film processors (Fuji / Noritsu) can range from €7000 to €12000. Personaly I don't like roller transport film processors like the Collenta, too many rollers in contact with the film and Dip & Dunk are very expensive and have a large footprint.

Supposedly, the Colenta roller transport film processors are on a different level and very high-grade compared to most of that type. Both Kodak and Fujifilm use them. I have not seen the price, but Colenta suggest that with 400-500 rolls per week, the processor pays for itself in a few months. Dip & dunk film processors have long been, and largely still are, the standard at professional labs, but I expect the Colenta roller transport film processors will become the standard as new labs open or old equipment needs to be replaced. The Colenta roller transport processors are also supposed to be easier to use and service than minilab machines.

 

[VinceInMT]

3000 rolls a night in the heyday does sound like a medium sized lab running a few machines.…

I brought this up on another thread in 2020 and posted some photos in comment #16.

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/any-former-processing-lab-people-out-there.175798/

 

[Prest_400]

There is an interest. I am active at a local Camera club (with a community darkroom) and IIRC the darkroom booking time about doubled YoY. That is largely B&W activities.

As of 2023, a Nordic distributor offered a sponsored photo walk catered to film photographers. A rough number of the demand for rolls of film "prepandemic" to 2023 was a change from 12K to 150K film rolls turned around in their market. As a consumer, what I did notice was a much more widespread and better availability of film products in this region.

As of C41, I "came back" to color about a year ago and scaled up my plans to shoot it. To be fair, some lab prices have held up quite well vs. Inflation and I can see some (dev only) 5€ prices from some of the new age labs. Mostly using minilab process, but that cater with curated scan output.

I am curious as to how E6 products are doing, as it doesn't have the same hype behind it.

Retail price...................................€6.00

I do see scans as a bottleneck. For one, large and lossless files can be obtained, but at a sizeable cost... Then it easily becomes expensive. Think Noritsu 16bit Tiff out of 120 formats.
I do see myself taking the procastinated way of camera scanning + an inversion app in a nearby future.

 

[bfilm]

I am curious as to how E6 products are doing, as it doesn't have the same hype behind it.

E-6 color transparency film is a particular interest of mine. It is my favorite way to photograph with color film. While I do like the possibility of the fully analog process with film and darkroom printing with C-41 film, I just really like the qualities of color transparencies.

But E-6 film doesn't seem to have had as much of a resurgence as C-41 film. While there was the tradition of home slideshows, I think a large part of color transparency film has always been tied closely with publishing, which has largely abandoned it.

As with so many things, convenience and efficiency have managed to supplant superior quality and aesthetics. I believe the sweet spot in publishing was when photography was with color transparency film, scanning was with photomultiplier tube drum scanners, and printing was with offset lithography or even gravure.

E-6 film is also more difficult to use correctly than C-41 film, and that has probably been a limiting factor for many people nowadays, too. Otherwise, one would think that with the common practice now of scanning and printing on the laser silver halide printers, E-6 could have had similar demand to C-41.

I would feel better about the state of E-6 film if Fujifilm would make Fujichrome Provia 100F more often. Provia seems to be only very periodically available. Kodak Ektachrome E100 seems to be fairly consistently available, but I prefer acetate film base, and Kodak only puts Ektachrome on acetate base in 135 format--they use polyester base for the 120 format, which limits my interest in it (but in the 135 format it is still a good option). Fujifilm uses acetate base for both 135 and 120 formats. Perhaps Ferrania will eventually make a color transparency film--and I think Ferrania currently uses acetate base for all of their films.

 

[koraks]

But E-6 film doesn't seem to have had as much of a resurgence as C-41 film

Yes, and in a way, that's actually a bit odd. After all, many people find E6 to scan more intuitively with much less color balancing challenges than C41 film. Since the vast majority of the film shot today is run through a scanner and the end result is only 'consumed' digitally, one would expect E6 being more popular.

 

[MattKing]

Yes, and in a way, that's actually a bit odd. After all, many people find E6 to scan more intuitively with much less color balancing challenges than C41 film. Since the vast majority of the film shot today is run through a scanner and the end result is only 'consumed' digitally, one would expect E6 being more popular.

One of the biggest differences might be that shoddy E6 processing reveals itself easily to the naked eye, whereas most people can't tell that their negatives are messed up - maybe not even after they scan them and work with the scans!

 

[albireo]

Yes, and in a way, that's actually a bit odd. After all, many people find E6 to scan more intuitively with much less color balancing challenges than C41 film. Since the vast majority of the film shot today is run through a scanner and the end result is only 'consumed' digitally, one would expect E6 being more popular.

Probably not, because a well exposed and well developed E6 slide, by virtue of being much easier to scan, will tend to resemble more closely the accurate colours people who have experienced digital photography seem to run away from when they jump into film.

Think for instance about those teenagers who are used to colour-accurate 24megapixels phone images, which they then process via digital filters to make those colours less accurate, but more useful for their style of visual communication.

These users are lured by C41 and by the fallacies and imperfections of the inversion process, rather than squeaky clean predictability of E6 - IMO.

 

[bfilm]

Yes, and in a way, that's actually a bit odd. After all, many people find E6 to scan more intuitively with much less color balancing challenges than C41 film. Since the vast majority of the film shot today is run through a scanner and the end result is only 'consumed' digitally, one would expect E6 being more popular.

Yes, I mention similar a bit further down in my post, along with a possible reason why perhaps it is not more popular (E-6 being a more difficult film to use properly). But it is a good point about the more intuitive scanning. I wasn't thinking specifically about it when I wrote the above post, but it is something that I have appreciated before.

It is possible, though, that this advantage in scanning doesn't apply quite as much in the larger volume of scanning, usually of C-41 films, for which many labs have prepared themselves nowadays, but more to the kind of care given to scanning by the drum scanning operators, working to match each scan to the original transparency. Or to the type of care one might use when doing one's own scanning.

 

[bfilm]

Probably not, because a well exposed and well developed E6 slide, by virtue of being much easier to scan, tends to resemble more closely the accurate colour people who have experienced digital photography seem to run away from when they jump into film.

This is possible, but many color transparencies also have the wonderful, distinctive look of film. I think it is probably more that it is a more difficult to use and lesser known film type to many people--especially people that are new to film. Even in the later days of film being the main format, I think the home slideshow was less common, and the usual casual format was C-41 film and silver halide prints for the family photo album. E-6 film was the domain of the professionals and publishing.

 

[koraks]

@albireo and @bfilm you both make valid points/nuances to my argument; I agree!

 

[xkaes]

At the Oscars last night, Christopher Nolan started his acceptance of the Best Director Award with a tip for other Directors -- especially budding Directors -- "Consider celluloid".

He made Oppenheimer with 70m film because, like most of use, he considers film to be the real McCoy.

But even before his Oscar, his movie created an explosion (appropriately enough) in FILM use -- and the manufacturing of it, of course:

https://www.thewrap.com/oppenheimer-...wrap-magazine/

That's good NEWS for all of us film lovers.

 

[bfilm]

Yes, the dedication to film of certain directors and cinematographers, I think has been one of the main things keeping film manufacturing going at Kodak. I have the impression that photographic film has increased nicely for them in recent years, but I do wonder if motion picture film might still be the larger portion.

But I do wish that people working in motion pictures could learn that celluloid hasn't been used as film base since the 1950s. Even Kodak still sometimes refers to it as celluloid. Ha, I just like accuracy.

 

[albireo]

This is possible, but many color transparencies also have the wonderful, distinctive look of film. I think it is probably more that it is a more difficult to use and lesser known film type to many people--especially people that are new to film.

Also true. Probably a mix of both factors.

 

[Paul Verizzo]

E-6 color transparency film is a particular interest of mine. It is my favorite way to photograph with color film. While I do like the possibility of the fully analog process with film and darkroom printing with C-41 film, I just really like the qualities of color transparencies.

But E-6 film doesn't seem to have had as much of a resurgence as C-41 film. While there was the tradition of home slideshows, I think a large part of color transparency film has always been tied closely with publishing, which has largely abandoned it.

As with so many things, convenience and efficiency have managed to supplant superior quality and aesthetics. I believe the sweet spot in publishing was when photography was with color transparency film, scanning was with photomultiplier tube drum scanners, and printing was with offset lithography or even gravure.

E-6 film is also more difficult to use correctly than C-41 film, and that has probably been a limiting factor for many people nowadays, too. Otherwise, one would think that with the common practice now of scanning and printing on the laser silver halide printers, E-6 could have had similar demand to C-41.

I would feel better about the state of E-6 film if Fujifilm would make Fujichrome Provia 100F more often. Provia seems to be only very periodically available. Kodak Ektachrome E100 seems to be fairly consistently available, but I prefer acetate film base, and Kodak only puts Ektachrome on acetate base in 135 format--they use polyester base for the 120 format, which limits my interest in it (but in the 135 format it is still a good option). Fujifilm uses acetate base for both 135 and 120 formats. Perhaps Ferrania will eventually make a color transparency film--and I think Ferrania currently uses acetate base for all of their films.

Why don't you like polyester base? I have a hard time imagining any real world difference, but do enlighten me.

 

[George Mann]

E-6 film is also more difficult to use correctly than C-41 film

I am going to counter this with the fact that slide film was originally intended to be projected and viewed directly thru a loupe.

 

[bfilm]

Why don't you like polyester base? I have a hard time imagining any real world difference, but do enlighten me.

A variety of reasons, that may or may not mean as much to everyone.

Partly, I like the tradition of acetate film and that the cellulose triacetate is more natural than polyester.

Another reason is one of the same reasons why motion picture camera film is always acetate and never polyester. Acetate film is not as strong as polyester, and so if acetate film jams, the film will break instead of the camera. Motion picture cameras are very expensive, as is any time lost waiting for the camera to be repaired or another camera to be readied. I don't know if this is quite as much of an issue with photographic cameras, especially manual advance cameras, where you might be able to feel a problem (if you are being careful) before you forcefully break something, but as any film camera is something of a precious item nowadays, regardless of the price, it seems a good idea to be careful.

 

[bfilm]

I am going to counter this with the fact that slide film was originally intended to be projected and viewed directly thru a loupe.

What I meant is that transparency film generally has a somewhat more limited dynamic range than negative film and is more demanding of good light and correct exposure.

Lens filters are also more important with transparency film than negative film. And these seem to be an increasingly rare item and lost art. For example, warming filters like KR 1.5, KR 3, etc.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes, and in a way, that's actually a bit odd. After all, many people find E6 to scan more intuitively with much less color balancing challenges than C41 film. Since the vast majority of the film shot today is run through a scanner and the end result is only 'consumed' digitally, one would expect E6 being more popular.

Chromes have fewer stops and more contrast and require more accurate exposure settings. Shadows often go black. But I agree it's less challenging when scanning to get the colors right which is why a shoot chromes.

 

[Prest_400]

E-6 color transparency film is a particular interest of mine. It is my favorite way to photograph with color film. While I do like the possibility of the fully analog process with film and darkroom printing with C-41 film, I just really like the qualities of color transparencies.

But E-6 film doesn't seem to have had as much of a resurgence as C-41 film. While there was the tradition of home slideshows, I think a large part of color transparency film has always been tied closely with publishing, which has largely abandoned it.


E-6 film is also more difficult to use correctly than C-41 film, and that has probably been a limiting factor for many people nowadays, too. Otherwise, one would think that with the common practice now of scanning and printing on the laser silver halide printers, E-6 could have had similar demand to C-41.

I would feel better about the state of E-6 film if Fujifilm would make Fujichrome Provia 100F more often. Provia seems to be only very periodically available. Kodak Ektachrome E100 seems to be fairly consistently available, but I prefer acetate film base, and Kodak only puts Ektachrome on acetate base in 135 format--they use polyester base for the 120 format, which limits my interest in it (but in the 135 format it is still a good option). Fujifilm uses acetate base for both 135 and 120 formats. Perhaps Ferrania will eventually make a color transparency film--and I think Ferrania currently uses acetate base for all of their films.

I agree and had the honor of being a young millenial that even tried Kodachrome thanks to APUG and some curiosity. Slide gives some beautiful colors, and in partial disagreement about it looking "digital" is that the primaries render in quite a powerful way, specially (IMO) the reds.
But you also point the difficulty: Slide film requires critical exposure and is no "overexpose Portra and get vibes"; whereas online negative films get a lot of praise, slide has mystique and silence around and about it. If it gives my experience any validity, I also like the latter color negative look and it is nice to have that flexibility with the negative's malleabillity.
The latter is also ironical as I had some Portra 400 lab developed and scanned, and many scenes looked like slide film! Of course a lot due to the light and how it was converted. A natural color with greens that reminded me of Provia

Yes, and in a way, that's actually a bit odd. After all, many people find E6 to scan more intuitively with much less color balancing challenges than C41 film. Since the vast majority of the film shot today is run through a scanner and the end result is only 'consumed' digitally, one would expect E6 being more popular.

Probably not, because a well exposed and well developed E6 slide, by virtue of being much easier to scan, will tend to resemble more closely the accurate colour people who have experienced digital photography seem to run away from when they jump into film.

Remember those teenagers who are used to colour-accurate 24megapixels phone images, which they then process via digital filters to make those colours less accurate, but more useful for their style of visual communication.

These users are lured by C41 and by the fallacies and imperfections of the inversion process, rather than squeaky clean predictability of E6 - IMO.

And I wholeheartedly agree. Heck, small sensor "digicams" are also being praised for that akin to what the equivalent in film were and has been -- imperfect and limited, with an aesthetic due to this. Personally I endured those digicams well enough while looking up to the "proper" high quality larger sensor digitals and film so I ain't going there... but I empathise about the feeling.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This is possible, but many color transparencies also have the wonderful, distinctive look of film. I think it is probably more that it is a more difficult to use and lesser known film type to many people--especially people that are new to film. Even in the later days of film being the main format, I think the home slideshow was less common, and the usual casual format was C-41 film and silver halide prints for the family photo album. E-6 film was the domain of the professionals and publishing.

Isn't chrome film more expensive?

 

[bfilm]

Isn't chrome film more expensive?

Yes, good point. This is something we haven't mentioned yet in this discussion on film type popularity. Transparency film is currently more expensive than negative film, particularly Fujichrome (except, curiously, in the 120 format). Processing costs vary; some labs are quite modestly priced and others charge a premium for E-6 processing. The additional cost combined with being generally more difficult or demanding to use probably are not a big appeal for many people that aren't already enchanted with or committed to transparency film.

 

[George Mann]

For those of use that use slide film as it was intended to be viewed, it is actually cheaper as you are only paying for the cost of the film plus the basic cost of development.

 

[bfilm]

For those of use that use slide film as it was intended to be viewed, it is actually cheaper as you are only paying for the cost of the film plus the basic cost of development.

Yes, and there are still some nice condition secondhand slide projectors out there. Braun Photo Technik in Germany still provide new 35mm slide projectors, for the time being. Jensen Diaprojektoren in Germany might still provide new, but I think quite expensive, medium format slide projectors.

But too much projection is not good for the film, and there are very, very few places that can still make analog transparency duplicates, and only slightly more places that can make transparencies from high-resolution scans (preferably photomultiplier tube drum scans to preserve the original film characteristics as well as possible). And of course, all of this can significantly increase the cost of using transparency film for projection.

Additionally, many labs have stopped offering slide mounting, even if they still do E-6 processing. So, one might have the additional cost and work of acquiring materials and mounting for projection.

All of this is not to disagree with your post, but just to point out that this has become more complicated nowadays.

 

[reddesert]

A variety of reasons, that may or may not mean as much to everyone.

Partly, I like the tradition of acetate film and that the cellulose triacetate is more natural than polyester.

Another reason is one of the same reasons why motion picture camera film is always acetate and never polyester. Acetate film is not as strong as polyester, and so if acetate film jams, the film will break instead of the camera. Motion picture cameras are very expensive, as is any time lost waiting for the camera to be repaired or another camera to be readied. I don't know if this is quite as much of an issue with photographic cameras, especially manual advance cameras, where you might be able to feel a problem (if you are being careful) before you forcefully break something, but as any film camera is something of a precious item nowadays, regardless of the price, it seems a good idea to be careful.

I don't worry about this for still cameras. Motion picture cameras have an enormously more demanding film transport than still cameras, even motorized still cameras, and use enormously more film. For ex, if you shot 10 rolls of 36 exp 35mm per week, in a year you'd have used less than what a 35mm movie camera uses in 30 minutes at 24 fps. Especially for a non-motorized still camera, just don't force anything (of course, you should never force the advance even with acetate base film), and it will be fine using polyester base film.