Renew My Faith Please ...

Wigwam Jones · Jun 29, 2006

eubielicious said:
I've been watching this thread with some interest. I think Wiggy's not entirely wrong in his assessment of the film industry as a whole. However, I think that saying that film will eventually die is a bit like saying that anything will do so. I could suggest the same is true of, say, the compact disc. You know the old cliche 'the only constant is change', and it is very likely that some technology emerges in the next 10-20 years which will supersede what we now think of as 'new' such as today's digicams.

Good point, and of course you're right. In the case of my argument, I posit that film'd demise, especially color film, will come sooner rather than later, and mainly for reasons of economic efficiency and pollution prevention rather than for lack of small-scale demand.

Wiggy stated early on in this thread that the problem with film is that there's no innovation and that in effect, the development of film (in its wider sense!) has ground to a halt. Well, maybe. Fundamentally the use of film hasn't changed much for some time. Strangely enough, this may be the one thing that keeps film going for some time to come.

Actually, I didn't intend to give the impression that the lack of innovation in film is part of the problem - what I meant was that none of the film manufacturers were putting any more R&D money into new emulsions, innovation, or even basic research of film technology.

You know that if you buy a 35mm or MF camera today that as long as film is being produced then you'll be able to get film for your camera, and your use of your camera is unlikely to change a great deal. It may get a bit more expensive but it'll be there.

Agreed.

Digital is still a constantly changing field with many competing technologies. It remains to be seen which of the technologies will eventually win out and become the standard. So, if I were to go out and buy a SACD player, for example, I don't actually know for sure that it will be useable in 10 years time.

I agree with this as well. SmartMedia cards are already obsolete - people who own cameras that used that recording medium are probably not happy (although of course the cameras that used them are obsolete now as well). Digital camera technology is far from mature. Unfortunately, consumers adopted them wholesale, warts and all.

In short, I would say that - yes, film may well eventually die out - but since that's true of anything we are using today, it's hardly worth worrying about.

It is true that no amount of worrying will change when film goes away. I do let it inform my decisions. For example, I still buy film cameras (because I do love film, believe it or not). But I balance the cost of my purchase against the enjoyment it will give me for the next ten years - not for the rest of my life.

Besides I also know that my Zeiss Ikon folder and my Speed Graphic will be capable of making great images long after my consumer digital camera (bought for ebay, honest guv) has gone into landfill or has been recycled etc.

Euan

You are absolutely right about this as well. Digital camera technology is essentially a 'throw away' technology at the moment - that may change, but it probably will not. We don't fix televisions anymore, we throw them away and buy new. It does not speak well of the values we consumers place on the things we buy, but the manufacturers continue to churn out what we demand these days.

Uncle Bill · Jun 29, 2006

Two words here, DON'T PANIC!
Ok that is out of my system, Vistek still carries tons of film and can be easily mail ordered without the hassles of the border. JandC Photo stocks what amounts an online candy store for black and white fans. I would maybe suggest a trip into Toronto, make a day of it, visiting both Downtown Camera and Vistek, stock up for all your needs and head back out.
I live in the suburbs of Toronto, it is a fact of life I have to buy my supplies in the city save for film as I have a Henry's locally.

Bill

roteague · Jun 29, 2006

Wigwam Jones said:
Actually, I didn't intend to give the impression that the lack of innovation in film is part of the problem - what I meant was that none of the film manufacturers were putting any more R&D money into new emulsions, innovation, or even basic research of film technology.

I don't that is totally accurate. Both Fuji and Kodak, have continued to develop new color films, although with much smaller R&D budgets than in the past. I met a Fuji rep in Toronto at the conference who said pretty much the same to me (Fuji did release 3 new films this year). FWIW, Fuji is actively promoting its film line - just yesterday, I read of another Fuji event (in the UK) that is only open to film photographers.

Wigwam Jones · Jun 29, 2006

Uncle Bill said:
Two words here, DON'T PANIC!
Ok that is out of my system, Vistek still carries tons of film and can be easily mail ordered without the hassles of the border. JandC Photo stocks what amounts an online candy store for black and white fans. I would maybe suggest a trip into Toronto, make a day of it, visiting both Downtown Camera and Vistek, stock up for all your needs and head back out.
I live in the suburbs of Toronto, it is a fact of life I have to buy my supplies in the city save for film as I have a Henry's locally.

Bill

None of which has anything to do with the manufacture of film. They can't sell what they don't have.

Wigwam Jones · Jun 29, 2006

roteague said:
I don't that is totally accurate. Both Fuji and Kodak, have continued to develop new color films, although with much smaller R&D budgets than in the past. I met a Fuji rep in Toronto at the conference who said pretty much the same to me (Fuji did release 3 new films this year). FWIW, Fuji is actively promoting its film line - just yesterday, I read of another Fuji event (in the UK) that is only open to film photographers.

One has to apply critical reading skills - the spinmeisters speak very carefully, and you have to read between the lines to get at what they're really saying.

Kodak and Fuji have both released new emulsions in 2006. How long do you suppose a new emulsion is in the design pipeline from requirements gathering to production? This is the tail end of R&D done in 2002 or 2003. No reason not to go to production if it does not require building new factories or creating new tooling or buying new chemicals.

When Kodak and Fuji say that they 'continue to develop new films', I have no doubt that's true - in the sense that there may yet be new emulsions in the pipeline that will still emerge in the next year or so. Now, did they say that they continue to put dollars into R&D for photographic film? No, they did not. Because, in my opinion, they're not doing any. Kodak is laying off 25,000 workers, my friend. 25,000. You think they're putting one thin dime into R&D for film? They're closing factories right and left, and CEO Perez has stated that film has no future (his handlers tried to take that back).

Fujifilm has stated that they absolutely believe in supporting their loyal film customers. Interesting. Why? Why would a reclusive CEO, who nearly never gives interviews, come out of the blue unasked and state that Fuji intends to keep producing film? Well, he did say that they would produce it as long as there was a market for it. That sounds like an exit strategy to me, not a statement of support. When they kill off film, they'll simply state that they did what they said they were going to do - support film as long as there was a market for it. Who defines what their market is? They do, of course. And of course, two days after their CEO spoke, they closed their film production facilities in South Carolina and the Netherlands, keeping their production facilities in Japan.

My point is that they don't have smaller R&D budgets than in the past. They have none. They are running away from film almost literally as fast as their feet can carry them.

Why? If film is so viable, why?

Here's why:

http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/silver.html

You only have to compare the sales data. Film camera sales from Japanese manufacturers have fallen off a cliff. Yes, there are a bazillion legacy film cameras out there - I own several. But most people who own them have them on a shelf. They take 'pitchers' with a el cheapo crappo digicam and they're perfectly happy with it. That's the market, my friend.

Andy K · Jun 29, 2006

Maybe its time a moderator moved this thread to Doom and Gloom. Then old Bill er I mean 'Wiggy' here can depress the shit out of himself as much as he wants.

wysiwyg · Jun 29, 2006

Uncle Bill said:
Two words here, DON'T PANIC!
Ok that is out of my system, Vistek still carries tons of film and can be easily mail ordered without the hassles of the border. JandC Photo stocks what amounts an online candy store for black and white fans. I would maybe suggest a trip into Toronto, make a day of it, visiting both Downtown Camera and Vistek, stock up for all your needs and head back out.
I live in the suburbs of Toronto, it is a fact of life I have to buy my supplies in the city save for film as I have a Henry's locally.

Bill

Cool. I have to get up there to check out those places. I heard that Henry's in T.O. is more of a super store of sorts. As for ordering online, I am getting the understanding that as long as the film is made somewhere, I will be able to get it. Good news.

As for where the heck this post went, WOW. I just wanted a normal 'pick your head up and cheer up' thread. This turned into a monster. Good read though. Thanks for all the links and advice that I got from leafing through the pages.

BrianShaw · Jun 29, 2006

Andy K said:
Maybe its time a moderator moved this thread to Doom and Gloom. Then old Bill er I mean 'Wiggy' here can depress the shit out of himself as much as he wants.

LOL... very loud!

Kino · Jun 29, 2006

Andy K said:
Maybe its time a moderator moved this thread to Doom and Gloom. Then old Bill er I mean 'Wiggy' here can depress the shit out of himself as much as he wants.

Yeah, this is undoubtedly a TROLL...

edz · Jun 30, 2006

David A. Goldfarb said:
Read Simon R. Galley's posts here on Ilford's commitment to B&W.

Ilford can be commited, as any business, but its sales that counts. Luckily the signs look good for Ilford.

Check out J&C, who are making lots of B&W films available from East Europe and from the major manufacturers.

I would not bet too heavily on a long term Adox/Efke. Their main advantage is high margins without much of a middleman. As long as people are prepared to pay extra for a cruder product made on obsolete labour intensive machines they can survive. Their main achilles heel is capital and scale. Hanging over their necks is also a move, sooner or later, of Croatia into the European Union. Wages and prices are still comparatively low in Croatia.

To Forte and Foma: Hungary and the Czech Republic are both in the European Union so must increasingly conform to EU environmental and labour standards. Since joining the EU there has been a steady rise in prices and with an impending EURO the production will compeletely loose much of their competitive edge against more modern production such as Kodak's. Their key is to produce unique products and they have good chances but I'd not see them as the lifeboat but rather as platforms floating in the sea...

Go to filmshooting.com to read about all the latest Super-8 film stocks.

Super-8 is not coating but, like 9.5, using materials intended for motion picture cinematography. Demand, especially for print materials, is at absolute record levels. Some of the major studios want to push things to digital distribution (inclusive an Orwealean digital rights management) but its a long way before something like that--- if ever--- can take on global scale. As long as people continue to visit the cinema....

I think there are good reasons to see 35mm being around for a long time. 120 film is the most fragile given its paper and assembly demands. As long, however, as there is backing paper sources and demand for rollfilm there should be rollfilm available--- the price, however, might become much higher than for 35mm (now its cheaper).

kmack · Jun 30, 2006

Wigwam Jones said:
And the bar to entry for making buggy whips is what? Some simple components, all of which are available on the consumer market? The investment required to start up such a business is minimal, wouldn't you agree?

Assuming one has a modicum of basic skills, one can make a buggywhip in one's garage or workshop, yes?

Can the same be said of film? I think any honest answer must be 'no'.

That is why I often refute the 'there are still buggywhips, therefore there will always be film' argument. The mere existence of one nearly-lifeless technology does not predicate another will survive as well.

The problem may be that you do not see evidence of a free market. No, not your "The "Evil Manufacturers are Unfairly Pushing the Market Towards Digital" Argument" but rather a barrier to any manufacturing that is not supported by a multinational or governmental corporation. If that is your argument about the entry barrier then that is a political/social issue not a mechanistic matter.

Free markets are flexable. If someone can make a profit in a niche market then they will. I currently know three blacksmiths and a knife maker. They all have back lists of commissions that are in some cases years long. Dead Link Removed. Flexable film bases have been around since late 19th century. I find it hard to accept that with 21st century machine tools, what is essentially a 19th century production model, could be too expensive to implement on a small scale today.

No, I am confident that I will be able to obtain black anc white film as long as I so desire. It may become more expensive, but it will be available.

Ed Sukach · Jun 30, 2006

kmack said:
The problem may be that you do not see evidence of a free market...
...If someone can make a profit in a niche market then they will. I currently know three blacksmiths and a knife maker. They all have back lists of commissions that are in some cases years long.

True. They still sell Charcoal in Art supply Stores ... and one can buy Chain Mail-making materials and equipment, as well as ready-made Chain Mail.

BTW ... how many would rather eat in a tiny three - or four employee resaturant, with ancient stoves (consider tthe brick-oven pizza) rather than the modern, up-to-date, hundred-thousand (??) emplyoyee, sophisticated space-age equipped, conglomerate know as McDonalds?

Didzis · Jun 30, 2006

I'd like to add some more doom and gloom
This article got me thinking: with all the war on terrorism, increased security and general paranoia, could we come to a point where chemical photography is impossible simply because the chemicals used are illegal and therefore not sold to general public? Or probably handling those chemicals would be a privilege granted only to trained professionals?
All right, I know it sounds a bit too far-fetched and you should take the whole idea with a grain of salt. But consider, for example, the future of daguerreotype. At least one method for developing daguerreotypes calls for mercury vapour, which, of course, is quite toxic. And, since I have the enormous joy to live in the EU, I've noticed that governments are extremely keen to ban anything that could possibly be somewhat toxic, especially if there are alternatives. So I must admit that I really doubt if mercury-processed daguerreotypes will be available for a long time. I'm not really that much into alternative processes, but I would not be surprised if many of them would eventually die as well, exactly for the same reason. Finally, film developer is quite toxic as well, so who knows. But then again, many common household chemicals are toxic as well, probably even more so.

JBrunner · Jun 30, 2006

Didzis said:
I'd like to add some more doom and gloom
This article got me thinking: with all the war on terrorism, increased security and general paranoia, could we come to a point where chemical photography is impossible simply because the chemicals used are illegal and therefore not sold to general public? Or probably handling those chemicals would be a privilege granted only to trained professionals?
All right, I know it sounds a bit too far-fetched and you should take the whole idea with a grain of salt. But consider, for example, the future of daguerreotype. At least one method for developing daguerreotypes calls for mercury vapour, which, of course, is quite toxic. And, since I have the enormous joy to live in the EU, I've noticed that governments are extremely keen to ban anything that could possibly be somewhat toxic, especially if there are alternatives. So I must admit that I really doubt if mercury-processed daguerreotypes will be available for a long time. I'm not really that much into alternative processes, but I would not be surprised if many of them would eventually die as well, exactly for the same reason. Finally, film developer is quite toxic as well, so who knows. But then again, many common household chemicals are toxic as well, probably even more so.

Most photographic chemicals are fairly mundane. Common chemicals
(sold as brand name products) available at the drug, grocery, garden, automotive, paint, building, pool, and hardware stores are far more useful to the miscreant chemist. So, I'm taking that grain of salt you recommended.

Jim Noel · Jun 30, 2006

Ilford, JandC Photo, Freestyle and others appear to be doing well disspelling the advertising myth that everything is digital.

If K_____ would stop this kind of advertising we would be much better off. They don't appear to be doing too well in that other world anyway.

edz · Jun 30, 2006

Jim Noel said:
Ilford, JandC Photo, Freestyle and others appear to be doing well disspelling the advertising myth that everything is digital.

Freestyle is a little shop in Hollywood much much smaller than the, albeit large, Ralph's Supermarket down the road from it--- that's a SINGLE Ralph's and not the chain. J&C makes Freestyle look like a major league team versus a cub scout standing alone with a stick in a field. Ilford has downscaled significantly over the years and is now a nice medium sized British company with an in demand product but with still some basic fundamental problems to overcome.

If K_____ would stop this kind of advertising we would be much better off. They don't appear to be doing too well in that other world anyway.

It depends upon how one measures "doing well". They are right now the leading company in the U.S. in consumer and professional digital imaging. That most of their consumer cameras as made in China and that most of their acquisitions were at highest prices is another side of the coin. But Kodak owns, controls or has its fingers in the heart of digital imaging. ASF, Leaf, Creo, Scitex, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen, the imaging bits of National Semiconductor and and and... are now Kodak companies and they are still hungry.. Kodak actually was one of the "inventors" of the current concept of digital imaging and have developed a significant portfolio of key intellectual property. The problem with Kodak is the market and investor perception.

DBP · Jun 30, 2006

I don't know how they plan to cut off all possible terrorist uses unless they regulate the sales of fertilizer, gasoline, fuel oil, chlorine, and quite a few other common items.

Allen Friday · Jun 30, 2006

I think Didzis makes a good point--the availability of chemicals may have an influence on the future of chemical based photography. But, I think the impact will be felt strongest in the historical processes.

For example, wet plate was the staple of photography for 50 years. Today, the chemicals are getting harder and harder to purchase. I know this because I got off the phone with Mike at Artcraft about a half an hour ago. He can supply me everything I need (Thanks for the great service Mike). But, before selling me ethyl ether, he checked to see that I really was a photographer.

Even some of the fairly innocuous chemicals are hard to find in some states. Everclear (190 proof alcohol) is one of the chemicals used. I bought some at my local Hy-vee grocery. But in California, Nevada and a couple of other states, the sale of it is banned.

Some of the chemicals used in photography could be used in manufacturing illegal drugs or making bombs or poisons etc. Reasonable controls on these chemicals seems prudent.

An analogy is to farm chemical purchases. I purchase fertilizer, herbicides and other farm chemicals in my capacity as a farm manager. Before I could purchase those chemicals, I had to get certified through the state and pass a test. I received my "Restricted Use" license a few years ago. To keep it current, I have to attend yearly classes. Could a "Restricted Use License" be a future requirement for chemical based photography?

srobb_photo · Jun 30, 2006

Well, let me preface this as saying I am far from a professional on anything. I simply do not believe that film will be gone anytime soon, and that includes color. I recently saw an advertisement for some d****** softwarend how they are now including profiles for certain color films. That is so you can make your d****** output from your d****** capture look like film.

Now, myself, I find that rather amusing that what everyone says will kill off film wants to look like film. Sorry, but I will be using film as long as it's around. Especiall for b&w because d****** for all of it's supposed greatness cannot come close to film for b&w results. And that even comes from diehard d****** users that I know.

BrianShaw · Jun 30, 2006

Allen Friday said:
Even some of the fairly innocuous chemicals are hard to find in some states. Everclear (190 proof alcohol) is one of the chemicals used. I bought some at my local Hy-vee grocery. But in California, Nevada and a couple of other states, the sale of it is banned.

Really? I saw some on the shelf of a little liquor store in Solvang CA last month. Should I rush back and buy it??

Allen Friday · Jun 30, 2006

Brain,

I based my statement on the availability of 190 proof everclear in California on a thread discussing this issue in the "Wet Plate Collodion Forum." In that thead, kerik stated, "Correct, you can not buy 190 proof here in CA. But, I don't think you can get it in Nevada either. The last time I tried when passing through, they only had the 150 proof version of Everclear. So, last summer I brought home 2 half-gallons from Montana. You can HAVE it here, you just can't buy it here. Mexico is another option. And I understand it's considerably cheaper there. I don't know how much you can bring across the border at once, so find out before you buy."

If you can get it, great. You might look next time you are in the store and let me know if it is 150 proof or 190 proof. If it is 190, I can post that on the other forum and let the others know.

Allen

BrianShaw · Jun 30, 2006

Allen Friday said:
I based my statement on the availability of 190 proof everclear in California on a thread discussing this issue in the "Wet Plate Collodion Forum."

If you can get it, great. You might look next time you are in the store and let me know if it is 150 proof or 190 proof. If it is 190, I can post that on the other forum and let the others know.

Okay Allen, I'll have to plan a visit to one of my local liquor stores this weekend. That should't be too traumatic!

When I saw the Everclear in Solvang, I remember thinking "wow... that's powerful stuff" but now I can't recall if it was 150 or 190 proof. Actually I didn't think to look too hard becasue I was not aware that it was available in different strengths.

As I said, I'll check it out and let you know.

Brian

Allen Friday · Jun 30, 2006

Thanks Brian.

Allen

Wigwam Jones · Jun 30, 2006

Dead Link Removed

Kodak to close facilities in France, England

Ben Rand
Staff writer

(June 29, 2006) Eastman Kodak Co. is silencing more manufacturing lines overseas in a continuing bid to cope with sharply declining demand for photographic film.

Rochester's second largest employer today announced it will close X-ray film finishing operations at its plant in Chalon-sur-Saone, France, as well as production of synthetic chemicals in Kirkby, England. The moves will result in the layoffs of about 385 people and restructuring charges of about $94 million.

Kodak is in the midst of reducing its worldwide manufacturing infrastructure by about two-thirds, actions that are scheduled to be completed by the middle of next year. The company has previously announced plant closings or manufacturing shutdowns in countries such as Australia, Brazil, Mexico and the United States.

Once the dust settles, Kodak expects to have eliminated between 22,500 and 25,000 jobs worldwide. The reductions have also cut the company's Rochester work force by about a third since 2004.

The company also said today it has intensified efforts to help redevelop its Chalon factory. The company expects that more than 700 sidelined workers will find jobs with other companies by year's end through those efforts.

BRAND@DemocratandChronicle.com

Didzis · Jun 30, 2006

Allen Friday said:
For example, wet plate was the staple of photography for 50 years. Today, the chemicals are getting harder and harder to purchase. I know this because I got off the phone with Mike at Artcraft about a half an hour ago. He can supply me everything I need (Thanks for the great service Mike). But, before selling me ethyl ether, he checked to see that I really was a photographer.

That is why I am not that convinced when people say: "Even if nobody makes film anymore, I can still make my own wet plates and happily snap away ever after." I don't really believe commercially available film is going to disappear within the next 20 years, and I'm afraid that access to the needed chemicals is going to be quite restricted by then.

Allen Friday said:
An analogy is to farm chemical purchases. I purchase fertilizer, herbicides and other farm chemicals in my capacity as a farm manager. Before I could purchase those chemicals, I had to get certified through the state and pass a test. I received my "Restricted Use" license a few years ago. To keep it current, I have to attend yearly classes. Could a "Restricted Use License" be a future requirement for chemical based photography?

Do you really need a licence to purchase fertilizer? And what about the average, should I say, amateur farmer, who enjoys growing a thing or two in his garden but is not really that dedicated to try obtaining the licence? I grew up in the Soviet Union, and amateur farming was a pretty popular pastime for many ordinary citizens (the bad food availability certainly contributed to this). I quite clearly remember my grandmother purchasing bags of chemical fertilizer without any problems, even in a totalitarian country with KGB and many other "security regulations". We've come a long way
Really, the licence thing would be a bit of shame, since many new people would be discouraged to take up the hobby. I mean, if you want to purchase the chemicals, you'd have to be a licenced photographer first, which probably means extended courses and tests and whatnot. A pretty big hassle for a simple hobby that you might not even keep.
But anyway, I don't really believe film is going anywhere. I would agree that film is not exactly the same thing as buggy whips, but, say, steam engines are still available, and, from what I gather, making slow-speed orthochromatic film is probably somewhat easier than making steam engines. That might as well cost more, but some companies are already charging a premium for old film formats and obviously getting away with this.

Renew My Faith Please ...

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency