Lack of affordable new cameras = death knell for film photography?

[Helge]

My summary of personal observations:
1. Limited options for new 35mm scanning. Maybe this new scanner (https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...image_primefilm_xas_scanner.html?sts=pi&pim=Y) is a step in the right direction.

It’s an update of an old model. And it’s one of the better legacy scanners. Legacy as in based on plus twenty years old consumer tech.
It’s still not very good though, and has some glaring faults:

Only 36x24 scans. No half frame, Xpan, Robot or other pseudo exotic 135 formats.
And of course no other film types.

And the quality, while certainly a lot better than Epsons “best” still leaves a lot to be desired.
Especially compared to DSLR scanning.
For that the price is too high.

In EU the same model with a different name and price point @ the equivalent of 700 to $1000 (!), is downright ridiculous for the feature set and quality.

 

[Donald Qualls]

One Industrial Film and Chemicals customer of professional and consumer still photographic film and chemicals represented approximately 20% of total Brand, Film and Imaging segment revenues in 2019.

Did anyone else notice this interesting little tidbit? The division that produces all their still film, motion picture film, chemicals (via outsource), brand licensing, and industrial film products (which would include medical products like X-ray film as well as the tiny remaining scientific market) gets 20% of its total revenue from one still film and chemicals customer. Presumably, that's the Kodak Alaris we appeal to if we get defective film or complain about when the new HC-110 isn't exactly like the old.

To put it another way, professional and consumer film -- Tri-X and Xtol, Gold 200, and everything else Kodak that you or I ever handle (unless we work in the motion picture industry or run a minilab) -- seemingly accounts for 20% of everything Kodak makes from licensing their name, feeding the motion picture industry (for that portion who still cling to film over digital), selling X-ray and similar films, and selling chemicals.

To me, that says that unless that segment represents much more than 20% of operating cost, professional and consumer film aren't going away at Kodak.

Using a changing bag is a nightmare.
It collapses on your hands disturbing the process, and after just a couple of minutes and a few mistakes it’s becomes a tropical biosphere.
It’s even worse with 120 than 135. I’ve never been able to find my way with it.

The only thing to recommend a changing bag is that it's better than ending a shoot because of a film jam, better than not being able to develop my own film because I don't have a room I can darken enough. I hate 'em, but I wouldn't want to be without one.

I’ve heard of small changing tents that leave a bit more space and ventilation to work in.
That might be the ticket, though since they didn’t become popular, I doubt that they are a very different experience.

There was a YouTube video series on making a changing box. You need a big box, sleeves off a changing bag (or from a heavy, dark coat with elastic cuffs), and some planning to be able to open and close the box fairly easily.

However: the only unrecoverable error in a changing bag is not realizing until after you have the film out of the cassette or roll that you don't have either the pour-through lid or the inversion cap for your developing tank -- that is, no way to just dump the film loose inside the tank while you pull your arms out of the sleeves to retrieve the forgotten item. Even then, I've pulled my arms out of the sleeves without exposing loose film, once -- not recommended, but possible. The problem is, you can't get the pour-through lid for a Paterson in through the sleeves, probably also true of the inversion cap. Might or might not be possible for a stainless tank's lid, depends on the changing bag, I'd guess.

 

[farmersteve]

Not trying to be combative, but I have to ask; "What are your suggestions"?

No suggestions. I am not a camera engineer. All I see is a need for compact 35mm autofocus cameras. Very few people want a new SLR beast like the Nikon. The prices are getting insane and the failure rate of the ones out there is high. I have no answers but I'm surprised of the lack of outside the box thinking here.

 

[MattKing]

industrial film products (which would include medical products like X-ray film as well as the tiny remaining scientific market)

Eastman Kodak sold their medical and X-ray film business to Carestream some time before the bankruptcy.
Eastman Kodak does do contract coating of things other than photographic film, and will do contract manufacture of photographic film for others who bring their own requirements or recipe.

 

[Sirius Glass]

This thread may be missing some content, we've had to re-ban a disruptive account coming in under a new alias. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

T*H*A*N*K Y*O*U!!!​

 

[GarageBoy]

Light tent like the harrison film pup is the way to go vs a changing bag

 

[Pioneer]

I do use a changing bag and a Harrison changing tent. If I have an option I would rather do things in my bathroom that I can easily make dark enough as it has no windows.

The tent does give a bit more room to work with but it is still not ideal. But, if like me for quite awhile, you have no other option, it is far better than nothing.

If you do have to use a changing bag then I recommend searching out a cotton one instead of the more common vinyl types. The vinyl ones turn into almost instant saunas even in the dry desert where I live. I do have one of the vinyl Arista bags somewhere but it has been so long since I used it I have forgotten where it is.

But even then, if that was all I had that is what I would use. It is always easy to run things down when you have other options.

 

[removed account4]

While we are at it, I highly suggest someone tool back up the Graflex production line and produced 5x7 reflex graphic with AF and color matrix metering, but in carbon fiber and make it for $500...

YES !!!!! and it take standard 4 15/16 x 6 15/16 FILM holders instead of the bag mags that are hard to find.

 

[Huss]

Absolutely! ..

But digital camera scanning is also completely impractical and presents an insurmountable number of difficulties to the vast majority of film shooters....

How so? If you already have a digi cam it is super easy to do. And if you don't, you can pick a used one up super cheap AND it also work as a camera!

 

[MattKing]

How so? If you already have a digi cam it is super easy to do. And if you don't, you can pick a used one up super cheap AND it also work as a camera!

I wouldn't discourage people from trying it, but I'm not altogether sure that flat field macro work where the qualities of the transmitted light source are extremely important and resolution is critical is something that I would describe as "super easy to do".

 

[Huss]

I wouldn't discourage people from trying it, but I'm not altogether sure that flat field macro work where the qualities of the transmitted light source are extremely important and resolution is critical is something that I would describe as "super easy to do".

Nah, it is super easy. I just use a $20 lcd light panel I bought off Amazon to provide the light source. Because you are editing the final product digitally (I use LR) you can correct for any colour imbalance really easily if need be.
Here I scanned some slide film using my digicam:



And here I scanned some Fuji C200 (the cheapest colour film on the market!) using my digicam. The key factor here is the 'new' negativelabpro.com plugin that converts the image from neg to positive:




And a crop from it from the top left corner showing the resolution:

 

[Helge]

It’s super easy once you know how.

But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman (yes I went there), to “just buy”:
A used DSLR
A macro lens, perhaps bellows/tubes
Light table/flash with extension cord and diffusion box
“Some way” to hold the film flat
Copy stand (tripod is not going to cut it for moveable setups)
Get a LR subscription
Buy NLP
And then find a place to store it all, learn to set it up and finally properly use it.

For ninety percent of the people shooting film now, it’s not going to happen.
Ever.
And is going to be something the rest will have to think long and hard about before they embark on.

It would be so easy to make an integrated, bonsai version of the above that it’s frankly incredible that some electronics manufacturer haven’t attempted it yet.

 

[Kino]

It’s super easy once you know how.

But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman (yes I went there), to “just buy”:

And there you'll stay... Permanent ignore.

 

[Donald Qualls]

@Helge Or one of us analog Luddites. I never owned a DSLR until I met my current partner just about five years ago. I have, once, used a 5 MP P&S digital aimed up into the lens of an enlarger to digitize sugminiature negatives, getting around 3 MP (after crop) from a 10x14 mm Minolta 16 frame. It was better than my flatbed scanner could do at 1200 ppi.

I was considering doing the same with my partner's D90 and macro setup, copy stand, etc. to beat the 2 MP my scanner can get from 35mm, but the scanner decided this was a good year to die (it was built in 1998, after all), so I've ordered a new one that should get 30+ megapixel from 35mm, and in the neighborhood of 5 MP from a Minolta 16 (I might still attempt the DSLR/macro setup if I start shooting more with the subminis, since if I can fill the frame in a D90 I can get 8-12 MP).

I'd never consider LightRoom -- I use GIMP; it's free (and LR probably doesn't work in Linux -- see, I'm not a Luddite in every field).

 

[AndyH]

On the subject of changing bags...

The only difficulty I have ever had with a bag is keeping it propped up while I'm working inside it. This is the easiest problem in the world to solve if you can't find the "tent" style bag. Even fortysomething years ago, I was able to build a framework that held it up - originally of wood, nowadays some small diameter PVC pipe, T and elbow joints, and a little cement if you want to make the joints permanent. I'm quick enough at loading film that I'm not spending long periods with my arms inside, creating humidity, If I forget something, I can always lay any open film loosely inside one of the tanks and close the tank, then go get the missing reel or top, and start over. How many things do you really need to remember anyway? I'm kind of a klutz at times, but I've never found changing bags difficult to use. I suppose if I did, I'd just wait till dark and go into a closet. If you have difficulty loading metal reels, the Patterson and Jobo models seem even easier. If you can't manage any of them, then sending your film out might be the best choice.

The development process itself, once you're loaded, is a piece of cake, and requires only a minimum investment. My Epson flatbed scanners produce acceptable quality for digital sharing and smaller prints - if I want big presentation prints, I'll outsource it. All I can say is that it works for me.

Andy

 

[Huss]

It’s super easy once you know how.

But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman (yes I went there), to “just buy”:
A used DSLR
A macro lens, perhaps bellows/tubes
Light table/flash with extension cord and diffusion box
“Some way” to hold the film flat
Copy stand (tripod is not going to cut it for moveable setups)
Get a LR subscription
Buy NLP
And then find a place to store it all, learn to set it up and finally properly use it.

For ninety percent of the people shooting film now, it’s not going to happen.
Ever.
And is going to be something the rest will have to think long and hard about before they embark on.

It would be so easy to make an integrated, bonsai version of the above that it’s frankly incredible that some electronics manufacturer haven’t attempted it yet.

You are deliberately making sound much more complicated than it is. I think because you want to prove a point.

All you need is 3 items for 35mm film - camera, lens and Nikon ES-2 film copier/holder. That is it. You can point the contraption at the sky if you don't want to spend $20 for a light source.

And nice of you to insult women.

 

[warden]

But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman (yes I went there)

You have got to be f'in kidding me. What year is it where you live? Don't answer, I don't want to talk to a misogynist anyway.

 

[Willyekerslike]

But imagine asking someone who is dipping their toes or getting started, esp. a woman

Welcome to my ignore list....

 

[foc]

If you can get one of these, they are the business.


or get yourself a mini tent pole (homemade of course) for your dark bag.

 

[davela]

35 mm has been the entry into photography for the past 50, 40 years, each year the stock of used cameras is reduced. One of our local high schools closed it's analog photography class and darkroom as parents were complaining about the lack of new affordable 35mm cameras,. Not knowing what to buy they would the camera that lasted a few rolls, wound in a bidding war over a few local mechanical cameras like the K 1000.

You are right, and the prices of recently manufactured quality 35mm cameras have gone through the roof. For instance, one cannot find a used Bessa R rangefinder for less than $500 or so now - it was a new, economy grade, entry level 35mm range finder when it came out a few years ago. Back then used prices were around $200 or so, and new ones could be found for about $300 - then production halted. I simply don't think the companies that can make cameras like that realize there is a market - yet at least. Oddly enough, there have been several new and very interesting full frame 35mm format lenses appearing in recent years, but probably because of full frame digital sensors.

 

[MattKing]

Excluding the reference to a particular gender, Helge's post matches what I think about this.

All you need is 3 items for 35mm film - camera, lens and Nikon ES-2 film copier/holder. That is it. You can point the contraption at the sky if you don't want to spend $20 for a light source.

In my case, that means a different lens, because my macro equipment only works with a full frame body and my digital camera is M4/3. I would also need a step-up ring to allow use of the ES-2. I have concerns about the $20 light source, but a lot of that comes from my "particularness" about colour, and I'm sure I could deal with my need for a more accurate continuous source.
That being said, my initial comment was about the meaning of "super easy". Things that Huss and others can do easily because they have most of everything they would need at hand and the skills and experience to make use of it are "super easy" - for them. For others, not super easy.

 

[Helge]

Oh God, there was no insult to woman.
On the contrary you could view it as a good thing that they won't tolerate as much BS to scan images.

A message to all the virtue signaling white knights: Woman and men are different, believe it or not.

Woman in general have a propensity to not tolerate as much clutter and technical overcomplication as men.
But of course as always there are exceptions.

The "yes I went there" was of course tongue in cheek. But good that all the mimosa men, trying to score cheap social point-out points, can stamp themselves as affected opportunists and mock concerned.
Trust me, the ignore went right back. As idiotic and childish as the function is.

You honestly would have to really reach, and be overly ready to take offence, to brand me as misogynist from that one line.

Now that we're reaching, you could say it's you who are hurting the cause.
You are diluting and trivialising an important topic, by trying to score cheap social points off my single sentence that was quite obviously at the most and at worst, ill judged.

 

[Helge]

@Helge Or one of us analog Luddites. I never owned a DSLR until I met my current partner just about five years ago. I have, once, used a 5 MP P&S digital aimed up into the lens of an enlarger to digitize sugminiature negatives, getting around 3 MP (after crop) from a 10x14 mm Minolta 16 frame. It was better than my flatbed scanner could do at 1200 ppi.

I was considering doing the same with my partner's D90 and macro setup, copy stand, etc. to beat the 2 MP my scanner can get from 35mm, but the scanner decided this was a good year to die (it was built in 1998, after all), so I've ordered a new one that should get 30+ megapixel from 35mm, and in the neighborhood of 5 MP from a Minolta 16 (I might still attempt the DSLR/macro setup if I start shooting more with the subminis, since if I can fill the frame in a D90 I can get 8-12 MP).

I'd never consider LightRoom -- I use GIMP; it's free (and LR probably doesn't work in Linux -- see, I'm not a Luddite in every field).

I've actually considered just having an open digital camera body, with exposed sensor (with a piece of a glass over to avoid dust) under an enlarger, and then slide the camera around on a plane slider (felt or glass) to capture the frame as an enlargement only limited by the enlargers ability to enlarge and perhaps the depth of the mirror box.

Any reason why this wouldn't work?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Stray light, reflections between sensor and cover glass, and your setup may not be rigid enough for each segment to be perfectly aligned. And why do you need more than about 50 MP anyway? If you use the camera lens combined with the enlarger lens, you can put the negative optically at infinity and make it large enough to cover the sensor -- beyond that, you're working too hard. Might as well just make a big straight print and then scan that.

 

[Huss]

Excluding the reference to a particular gender, Helge's post matches what I think about this.

In my case, that means a different lens, because my macro equipment only works with a full frame body and my digital camera is M4/3. I would also need a step-up ring to allow use of the ES-2. I have concerns about the $20 light source, but a lot of that comes from my "particularness" about colour, and I'm sure I could deal with my need for a more accurate continuous source.
That being said, my initial comment was about the meaning of "super easy". Things that Huss and others can do easily because they have most of everything they would need at hand and the skills and experience to make use of it are "super easy" - for them. For others, not super easy.

It is super easy not because I had the gear - but because I wanted to scan film and so did the research on how to do it. End result is the best result outside a drum scanner is a digicam with lens + film holder. All three things available at the click of a button.

You could step up to a FF camera if you want. A used Sony A7 is $400? New Nikon D610 is $800. Remember we are talking about a scanning solution for people who are looking to get into it. Just because your equipment as is does not work ideally can be fixed by getting the correct gear.

The solution is out there. And IS super easy. Camera + lens + ES-2. 3 things.

Scanned with those things, and the $20 light source: