New Film Manufactures & Resurrections - Blessing or Bane?

We all celebrate and rejoice industry announcements regarding new Films and old films being resurrected. We see the re-birth of old film manufacturers and new films being released as validation of our hobby and 'proof' that analog photography is alive, well, and growing.
HOOAH!!
However lately I've begun to wonder if it might be too much, too soon. I wonder if with the opportunity being discovered by the industry that there is growth in an industry once thought dead, it might cause over-saturation to the point where, once again, it is no longer profitable to produce film.
Even small film producers must have a certain volume to justify their existence. We are still a niche market and very likely to remain so. Digital photography is quick and easy for the general public and there is a lot to be said today for instant gratification.
I fear a tipping point in the future, where the choices in film far exceed the needs and desires of the consumer.
This is not 1960 anymore. Everyone doesn't have nor desire a film camera. Memories and moments are still being captured but more with a 'now' and 'disposable' mentality. Your cell phone fulfills that need abundantly.
Will the future see shelves of dusty film boxes unsold reaching their date of expiration?
How long does it take to produce one master roll of film?
How long does it take to sell all of the individual rolls of film it will yield?
Then how do you fill the 'down' time of your equipment? Produce another type of film.
Now, how long does it take to sell all of the individual rolls of film TWO rolls yield?
And so on times one manufacturer - times two manufacturers - times three manufacturers....
Then, how long before one has to close it's doors because it can no longer find balance in supply and demand?
Sometimes we truly do have to be careful of what we wish for.
Will we reach a point of too much of a good thing?

What are your thoughts?

No worries. Lomography will just buy the old rolls and repackage them...

I don't understand all the hoopla surrounding the reintroduction of Ferrania films. The films originally offered were always off-label budget films whose only redeeming quality was price.

Ferrania films always had a certain cult following especially in Europe, also many Italian (B/W and a few in color) Movies including those made by Fellini were shot on Ferrania. Ferrania made a quality product before they were bought by 3M in the 1960's. 3M was not good for the company image.

Before 3M, Ferrania was a top brand. A couple Oscar winning films were shot on P30.

pbromaghin said:

Before 3M, Ferrania was a top brand. A couple Oscar winning films were shot on P30.

Click to expand...

MDR said:

Ferrania films always had a certain cult following especially in Europe, also many Italian (B/W and a few in color) Movies including those made by Fellini were shot on Ferrania. Ferrania made a quality product before they were bought by 3M in the 1960's. 3M was not good for the company image.

Click to expand...

Or the company's products. I doubt the new investors who are trying to revive Ferrania bought pre-1964 equipment from when Ferrania was producing a quality product. I wish the new investors well, but have limited expectations.

I was reading the thoughts of one insider. It is person who makes his own bw film. Small batches. According to him film for photography is small, very small part of the business for film making companies.
The major part is cinematography and special use film.
If so the availability of film is only driven by decision makers. As long as they see it profitable they will make it.
Personally, I don't know for how long. Color film is already priced out and away from my pocket. Kodak BW is also priced un-affordable for me. I simply relay on Ilford-Kentmere brands. Once they will reach Kodak prices I will limit amount of film to few rolls per year.
I hope in the future after cinematography film and special use film will be gone, some small venues will step in with supported by manufactures small film making lines. Just like it happen recently with vinyl. In 2016 they made and started to sell, install very small LP making machines at very reasonable price.

pbromaghin said:

Before 3M, Ferrania was a top brand. A couple Oscar winning films were shot on P30.

Click to expand...

Guess I must buy some P30, then I'll be good for my next Oscar win ? Or, thinking about it, do I still to be a great Director, and have top actors, camera crew, lighting, wardrobe, makeup, editors, sound crew, music writer, musicians, scene designer, continuity girl, tea maker, and labs (and digital scans). Oh, and would I still have to have a good story and scriptwriter ?

MDR said:

Ferrania films always had a certain cult following especially in Europe, also many Italian (B/W and a few in color) Movies including those made by Fellini were shot on Ferrania. Ferrania made a quality product before they were bought by 3M in the 1960's. 3M was not good for the company image.

Click to expand...

After the buy by 3M, Ferrania massively improved in resources. 3M wanted to offer Professional film in the early 80s and such films, reviewed on contemporary magazines, were good and competitive. But they did not market them effectively, so at the end 3M ended up having Ferrania as a provider of store-label film.
.

faberryman said:

Or the company's products. I doubt the new investors who are trying to revive Ferrania bought pre-1964 equipment from when Ferrania was producing a quality product. I wish the new investors well, but have limited expectations.

Click to expand...

But was whatever was sub-par about the Ferrania film a consequence of limitations of the production machinery or just the usual cutting corners to "save money and boost profits" that is way too common in our modern spreadsheet driven approach to manufacturing consumer products in general. That is, was a maker producing to the best specs they could make, or was it to meet a price point for "eh, good enough" to satisfy a distributor or wholesaler.

In general if one tries to make film with a machine that makes enough product in three months to satisfy the likely market for ten years, one has a problem. Some of those Kodak-style machines that made wide rolls, many miles long, likely have a fair amount of waste at startup until they get the process tweaked. They might also be very difficult to switch from 400TX to Tmax100 efficiently. My impression is that part of Ilford's new found success after resurrecting themselves a dozen years back was coming up with a new or modified production facility. The facility was designed to do a lower level of production but be very flexible and easily switched to different emulsion recipes; i.e, scale down production to a level more adapted to a newer, smaller market.

I've not followed this Ferrania venture that closely, but wonder if a scaling down may be part of what they're are doing. I would think a company set up to address small, niche production might be able to do OK -- a real B&W IR film, etc. If they could manage it with low enough overhead to keep prices within reason.

faberryman said:

Or the company's products. I doubt the new investors who are trying to revive Ferrania bought pre-1964 equipment from when Ferrania was producing a quality product. I wish the new investors well, but have limited expectations.

Click to expand...

Was the equipment in use in 2003?
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/ferrania-ranks-highest-in-independent-colour-film-tests-1311

railwayman3 said:

Guess I must buy some P30, then I'll be good for my next Oscar win ? Or, thinking about it, do I still to be a great Director, and have top actors, camera crew, lighting, wardrobe, makeup, editors, sound crew, music writer, musicians, scene designer, continuity girl, tea maker, and labs (and digital scans). Oh, and would I still have to have a good story and scriptwriter ?

Click to expand...

Since you have neither facts nor logic on your side, you figure a few straw men will win the day for you. Well, good luck with that.

pbromaghin said:

Was the equipment in use in 2003?
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/ferrania-ranks-highest-in-independent-colour-film-tests-1311

Click to expand...

That is the Solaris film, which was produced by them using their equipment, part of which is preserved at the current Ferrania, and supposedly part of the involved team is right now working for them.

railwayman3 said:

Guess I must buy some P30, then I'll be good for my next Oscar win ? Or, thinking about it, do I still to be a great Director, and have top actors, camera crew, lighting, wardrobe, makeup, editors, sound crew, music writer, musicians, scene designer, continuity girl, tea maker, and labs (and digital scans). Oh, and would I still have to have a good story and scriptwriter ?

Click to expand...

and your argument is?

the point is that Ferrania camera film was good enough for major, award winning and/or classic productions and used by some of the top film directors in history.

pbromaghin said:

Since you have neither facts nor logic on your side, you figure a few straw men will win the day for you. Well, good luck with that.

Click to expand...

I was actually being a little sarcastic, but obviously you miss the point.....there seem to be some here who think that buying the latest new wonder film (be it P30 or any other) will transform their work to match the greatest photographers in history. Bit like the Holy Grail....or the latest Digital camera.

I'm fairly sure that Fellini would have produced great movies on any make of film....or even on Digital if that had been the main system at the time.

flavio81 said:

and your argument is?

the point is that Ferrania camera film was good enough for major, award winning and/or classic productions and used by some of the top film directors in history.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree...other awards were won on Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Fuji, Gevaert, Valca, Orwo, Sovcolor, and probably others, not to mention Digital. My issue is that there is no "magic" film, Ferrania or any other make, which will transform anyone's work overnight. No "magic" camera, lens,developer, printing paper or anything else.
It's too easy to get bogged down with technique and forget the whole purpose of photography. My most precious pictures are those of friends and family, not my own great "works of art", nor my most successful lines-per-mm test chart pictures. I have no idea what film, camera, or printing paper were used when these family shots were taken....it may well have been nothing more than an old folder, Verichrome and Velox contact prints, but the results are priceless and irreplaceable.

railwayman3 said:

I was actually being a little sarcastic, but obviously you miss the point.....there seem to be some here who think that buying the latest new wonder film (be it P30 or any other) will transform their work to match the greatest photographers in history. Bit like the Holy Grail....or the latest Digital camera.

I'm fairly sure that Fellini would have produced great movies on any make of film....or even on Digital if that had been the main system at the time.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but my post was the wrong response to the wrong person in the wrong thread! Forget I wrote it, please.

I was going to reply to you to the effect that somebody who did all that it takes to create a great movie wouldn't shoot it on crappy film.

flavio81 said:

That is the Solaris film, which was produced by them using their equipment, part of which is preserved at the current Ferrania, and supposedly part of the involved team is right now working for them.

Click to expand...

Thank you, Flavio. I hoped my point would be made without having to spell it out.

railwayman3 said:

I don't disagree...other awards were won on Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, Fuji, Gevaert, Valca, Orwo, Sovcolor, and probably others, not to mention Digital. My issue is that there is no "magic" film, Ferrania or any other make, which will transform anyone's work overnight. No "magic" camera, lens,developer, printing paper or anything else.
It's too easy to get bogged down with technique and forget the whole purpose of photography. My most precious pictures are those of friends and family, not my own great "works of art", nor my most successful lines-per-mm test chart pictures.

Click to expand...

Ok, in this I agree 100% with you and I apologize if my post was a bit rude.

BTW, did Valca really made cinema film? (for the uninitiated, Valca was a Spanish factory of film, made with the collaboration of Ilford. There was also another factory on the Franco-era Spain: "Negra")

pbromaghin said:

Sorry, but my post was the wrong response to the wrong person in the wrong thread! Forget I wrote it, please.

I was going to reply to you to the effect that somebody who did all that it takes to create a great movie wouldn't shoot it on crappy film.

Click to expand...

No problem. You are quite correct....reliable and good quality film is one of the many things which all come together to make a great movie. I've visited three or four feature film shoots over the years, each scene will be shot many times, mainly to get a perfect "take", but also, I was told, to cover the occasional film fault, film handling damage, or processing issue. Film is theby far cheapest part of the cost, so, as you say, no-one is going to use crappy film to save a few $$$.

pbromaghin said:

Thank you, Flavio. I hoped my point would be made without having to spell it out.

Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Additionally, they (the Ferrania team) have some patents from around the 2000s related to color film, most likely improvements they made on the Solaris film. Technologically, probably Kodak and Fuji were (are) always ahead, but my point is that Ferrania not just manufactured film, they also did research and development and brought out their own patents. The current Ferrania company is in (and inherited) the Research&Development lab, which was created around 1964/5 by 3M, and has its own mini-coater, able to produce film on a small scale, which, if Ferrania does their things right, they will be able to do profitably.

Moreover, they have salvaged a lot of equipment of the former big coating plant, which would enable them to scale up production if necessary.

I've used some Solaris 100 and 800 on medium format, and I can say the colors were very nice, although the grain of the 800 speed was noticeably higher than what I would get with, for example, Fuji Superia 800. But a totally usable film.

pbromaghin said:

Was the equipment in use in 2003?
https://www.ephotozine.com/article/ferrania-ranks-highest-in-independent-colour-film-tests-1311

Click to expand...

Funny that the name of the "independent" tester is not revealed, and that the tests of Kodak, Ferrania, Agfa, Fuji, and Konica were conducted at Kodak and Ferrania facilities (presumably all but the Kodak film tests were conducted at Ferrania), and that only ISO 200 films were tested. It reads like a Ferrania press release picked up by ePHOTOzine. The test dates from 2003, the same year Ferrania filed for bankruptcy. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it.

flavio81 said:

Ok, in this I agree 100% with you and I apologize if my post was a bit rude.

BTW, did Valca really made cinema film? (for the uninitiated, Valca was a Spanish factory of film, made with the collaboration of Ilford. There was also another factory on the Franco-era Spain: "Negra")

Click to expand...

I confess that I can't quote any specific movies shot on Valca, but I have seen bulk rolls of 35mm "cine film" on Ebay some years ago. It's. of course, unusual to see a credit on a B&W movie for the actual film used. Valca made a lot of B&W products and also "Valcolor" negative...not sure if this might have been a rebadged product from another maker.....rather like the rare "Efkacolor Spektar 100" which was "Made in Japan" (it looked like Konica packaging). Reading around, it seems Valca went into bankruptcy through bad management and government policies in the early 1990's, well before any real competition from digital.

Negra seems an even more obscure company, have seen their 35mm films years ago, but no idea of their history or the scope of their production.

Edit - it's all here, never thought to look:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

The advantage flowing from new and resurrected films is that there will be pressure to innovate with respect to the distribution system. And I would argue that the distribution system is even more broken/inefficient than the manufacturing.

The more the merrier. I do not want to be left only with Tri-X selling at ungodly prices.