Is there really a strong interest in film photography?

[Anon Ymous]

So what keeps them in business?

Many other products. Think about Fuji...

 

[Helge]

My onion is based on anecdotal evidence, for sure. For the last 40 years of my working career, I have been involved in photography. Aside form working with a multitude of commercial photographers, I freelanced for one of the major camera stores in Los Angeles. Agfa Motion Picture film was an agency client account I worked on. I have seen the heyday of film, with one-hour photo labs on practically every block, many labs catering to professionals and camera stores and equipment rental houses who gradually shuttered their doors. There used to be rows upon rows of carded 35mm film in every drug store and convenience store, supermarket, news stands (remember those?) and department stores. Big camera stores had multiple refrigerators stocked to the gills with film. Professional photographers would carefully buy blocks of film from the same emulsion batch to ensure consistency for a shoot. Where is that now? Kodak may have to hire more workers and open another shift, but there is a shortage of skilled workers today in the U.S. and jobs go begging. I have attended classes to brush up my darkroom skills at the local community college with a burgeoning photo department, but they have been on the verge of closing their darkroom a number of times. The last film class I attended started with 15 or 20 students and at the last class there were 3 or 4 who remained making final presentations. What its your opinion based on?

That’s a little more like it.

1. Film is never going back to the heyday. That’s not what the resurgence is about.

2. Sadly dark room printing is not as much a part of the resurgence as the film and scanning part.
Printing images is simply not a part of peoples mindset today. Most people wouldn’t know what to do with a print. “Hang it on the wall”? “That’s for posters or paintings”.
But even then, dark room printing is coming back. Albeit at a slower pace.
Which is understandable as it’s an another step and another tier of cost. And worst of all, requires space and planning.
I’ve had dark room equipment snatched under my nose multiple times because I thought I had time to think it over or saw it too late.
Just a few weeks ago, a Microsight focuser was bought in a thrift market seconds before I had a chance to pick it up.
And the guy who bought it clearly knew how lucky he was (I asked him).

3. Kodak hiring workers can’t possibly be a bad thing. At worst some people quit and they need to replace them. At best they are overwhelmed by market demand.

New cameras will come soon enough.
What we really need now is a 8000 dpi cheap scanner.
Not the various overpriced holders and copy-stands various vendors try to oversell.

We need a simple, robust, cheap and last but not least good solution to scanning.
Take any of the four requirements out and it’s not good enough.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That’s a little more like it.

1. Film is never going back to the heyday. That’s not what the resurgence is about.

2. Sadly dark room printing is not as much a part of the resurgence as the film and scanning part.
Printing images is simply not a part of peoples mindset today. Most people wouldn’t know what to do with a print. “Hang it on the wall”? “That’s for posters or paintings”.
But even then, dark room printing is coming back. Albeit at a slower pace.
Which is understandable as it’s an another step and another tier of cost. And worst of all, requires space and planning.
I’ve had dark room equipment snatched under my nose multiple times because I thought I had time to think it over or saw it too late.
Just a few a Microsight focuser was bought in a thrift market seconds before I had a chance to pick it up.
And the guy who bought it clearly knew how lucky he was (I asked him).

3. Kodak hiring workers can’t possibly be a bad thing. At worst some people quit and they need to replace them. At best they are overwhelmed by market demand.

New cameras will come soon enough.
What we really need now is a 8000 dpi cheap scanner.
Not the various overpriced holders and copy-stands various vendors try to oversell.

We need a simple, robust, cheap and last but not least good solution to scanning.
Take any of the four requirements out and it’s not good enough.

2. With social media on the web, new photographers want to scan so they can show others electronically.

3. When I bought a V850 Epson scanner a couple of years ago, I was contacted by Epson with a questionnaire regarding future requirements in a scanner. I told them of the issues we all talk about like sharpness, resolution, better holders, and dMax. Let's hope they are working on better scanners.

 

[kal800]

Most people wouldn’t know what to do with a print. “Hang it on the wall”? “That’s for posters or paintings”.

Of course. My photographies are hanging on the walls of our house, my family's, friends's - usually in living rooms, hallways, etc. The final product of photography is printed enlargement mounted in frames - like a painting, or other piece of art. One of the main reasons I don't shoot digital is that this process ends on the computer or mobile device screen, sent by useless social media platforms.

What we need is some way to print colour slides - maybe some day Ilfochrome will be back...

 

[Helge]

Of course. My photographies are hanging on the walls of our house, my family's, friends's - usually in living rooms, hallways, etc. The final product of photography is printed enlargement mounted in frames - like a painting, or other piece of art. One of the main reasons I don't shoot digital is that this process ends on the computer or mobile device screen, sent by useless social media platforms.

What we need is some way to print colour slides - maybe some day Ilfochrome will be back...

My point was that most people don’t perceive their own photos as something that is worthy to be hung on the wall.
They have a much more casual relationship to them. Spending money and time on a single personal frame is a foreign concept to them.
And the few that have tried have been soured on the idea by terrible waxy inkjet prints that fade.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Being only an imitation of acoustic real instruments. That's what is all about digital stuff - to imitate real things at lower cost.

In spite of your prejudices the sound the same or better and that is what counts. The advent of the electronic keyboard may hinder to continuing work for piano turners in the future.

 

[kal800]

In spite of your prejudices the sound the same or better and that is what counts.

But it is still an imitation. Besides - have you ever seen any serious concert or competition where a pianist would perform on electronic instrument? I would rather expect to see Steinway or Yamaha grand piano. Those Clavinomas are good for practice if a musician does not have place for acoustic one.

 

[Sirius Glass]

But it is still an imitation. Besides - have you ever seen any serious concert or competition where a pianist would perform on electronic instrument? I would rather expect to see Steinway or Yamaha grand piano. Those Clavinomas are good for practice if a musician does not have place for acoustic one.

It is for my, my family and my friends enjoyment. I do not think that my keyboard playing ability will impact or threaten Van Cliburn.

 

[kal800]

And the few that have tried have been soured on the idea by terrible waxy inkjet prints that fade.

That's my point - is there any particular reason why Ilfochrome passed away, while other processes still live?

 

[Pieter12]

Of course. My photographies are hanging on the walls of our house, my family's, friends's - usually in living rooms, hallways, etc. The final product of photography is printed enlargement mounted in frames - like a painting, or other piece of art. One of the main reasons I don't shoot digital is that this process ends on the computer or mobile device screen, sent by useless social media platforms.

What we need is some way to print colour slides - maybe some day Ilfochrome will be back...

Digital in the hands of a competent craftsman, will produce excellent results as inkjet prints, black and white or color. One might have to outsource in order to get the best scan or print rather than investing thousands in calibrated monitors, high-end scanners and printers, ink, paper and software plus the time to master it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

That's my point - is there any particular reason why Ilfochrome passed away, while other processes still live?

Because Ilford did not choose to keep the product available.

 

[kal800]

Because Ilford did not choose to keep the product available.

Any decision is due to some reasoning and I am simply curious why they chose to abandon the only technology allowing to make prints from slides.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any decision is due to some reasoning and I am simply curious why they chose to abandon the only technology allowing to make prints from slides.

I do not know. I used it. If it were available and I still shot slides I would use it today.

 

[Henning Serger]

Any decision is due to some reasoning and I am simply curious why they chose to abandon the only technology allowing to make prints from slides.

Too low demand. It was discontinued in the very critical market phase when demand for film was extremely low and around its lowest point / bottom.

By the way, it is not the only way to make prints from positives / transparencies: You can also make outstanding prints by scanning and then printing on classic silver-halide RA-4 paper via the usual laser exposing.
A drum-scanned positive exposed on Fujifilm's latest and greatest "Maxima" premium RA-4 paper for galleries / museums / exhibitions / best quality lovers is really outstanding!
As much as I loved Ilfochrome, but the above mentioned quality can really compete.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[kal800]

A drum-scanned positive exposed on Fujifilm's latest and greatest "Maxima" premium RA-4 paper for galleries / museums / exhibitions / best quality lovers is really outstanding!

That's kind of idea. Actually I planned to try hybrid with 4x5 slides and drum scanning. If I could transfer it to paper the way you mentioned I am more than happy, thanks a lot for suggestion. I truly love B&W prints but ability to have colour ones as well sounds really appealing.

 

[Pieter12]

Any decision is due to some reasoning and I am simply curious why they chose to abandon the only technology allowing to make prints from slides.

You can still make an internegative and a C Print.

 

[Helge]

Too low demand. It was discontinued in the very critical market phase when demand for film was extremely low and around its lowest point / bottom.

By the way, it is not the only way to make prints from positives / transparencies: You can also make outstanding prints by scanning and then printing on classic silver-halide RA-4 paper via the usual laser exposing.
A drum-scanned positive exposed on Fujifilm's latest and greatest "Maxima" premium RA-4 paper for galleries / museums / exhibitions / best quality lovers is really outstanding!
As much as I loved Ilfochrome, but the above mentioned quality can really compete.

Best regards,
Henning

Slide scans really well. Or at least better than most negatives.
It’s finer grained because of the reversal and the high contrast and baked in colours means they need a minimum of post processing.
Still no comparison to projection. But projection is projection for good and bad.

 

[IMoL]

We need a simple, robust, cheap and last but not least good solution to scanning.

I would add fast to that list of attributes. I mainly camera-scan my negatives; it is not simple and not cheap (unless you have much of the equipment already) but the results are good and it is really fast - I can do a 36 exp roll of 35mm in just a few minutes.

It is the lack of speed that has kept me doing this slightly complicated process instead of trying dedicated scanner options; none of them approach this sort of speed.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Too low demand. It was discontinued in the very critical market phase when demand for film was extremely low and around its lowest point / bottom.

By the way, it is not the only way to make prints from positives / transparencies: You can also make outstanding prints by scanning and then printing on classic silver-halide RA-4 paper via the usual laser exposing.
A drum-scanned positive exposed on Fujifilm's latest and greatest "Maxima" premium RA-4 paper for galleries / museums / exhibitions / best quality lovers is really outstanding!
As much as I loved Ilfochrome, but the above mentioned quality can really compete.

Best regards,
Henning

I still shoot Velvia 50. Thirty-five years ago I had outside lab make me 16x20" prints from 6x7 medium format 120 Velvia 50 and other chromes. They used a 4x5 internegative to produce the prints chemically.

How does Velvia 50 drum scanning and RA-4 and laser exposing/printing hold up today?

 

[VinceInMT]

We need a simple, robust, cheap ….

Define “cheap” and why that is a requirement.

 

[Agulliver]

I am satisfied with the quality of scans I get out of my now quite ancient Epson....but speed could be improved.

What I'd appreciate is a multi-format scanner that is either rapid, or that I can feed an entire film (135, 120, 127, 110) and just let it do it's thing once I've looked at the thumbnails. My old Epson will do 12 35mm frames at a time but that's half or a third of a film and a whole film still takes 60-90 minutes at a decent resolution. 120 it can only handle two 6x6 frames at once, one 6x9. 127 and 110 I have to bodge an improvised fix to scan those.

 

[VinceInMT]

I am satisfied with the quality of scans I get out of my now quite ancient Epson....but speed could be improved.

I hear you on the speed thing. When I got a hand-me-down Epson V500 a while ago I decided to scan all of my film shot since 1973 (35mm negs and positives, 120 negs and positives, B&W and color) and it took me about a year to go through over 16,000 images. Then I did all my dad’s slides. Now I am working on the family snapshots for which I think I have all the negatives. It takes time but I generally do it while I’m also working on something else nearby.

 

[jtk]

You can still make an internegative and a C Print.

That's IF you can find proper interneg film. Which, not incidentally, will create its own age-related problem within about 5 years.

 

[jtk]

I hear you on the speed thing. When I got a hand-me-down Epson V500 a while ago I decided to scan all of my film shot since 1973 (35mm negs and positives, 120 negs and positives, B&W and color) and it took me about a year to go through over 16,000 images. Then I did all my dad’s slides. Now I am working on the family snapshots for which I think I have all the negatives. It takes time but I generally do it while I’m also working on something else nearby.

Just wondering: why don't you edit those snaps, then discarding the junque, rather than scanning everything? IMO that's the respectful thing to do for family.

If it's worth scanning/copyinv, surely it's worth printing.

 

[Pieter12]

That's IF you can find proper interneg film. Which, not incidentally, will create its own age-related problem within about 5 years.

The print or the negative?