Renew My Faith Please ...

[naturephoto1]

That Pentax may be silly, but if I remember correctly, isn't that the 110 camera with interchangeable lenses?

Rich

 

[BrianShaw]

Well, I have some really fun 110 and 126 cameras, including a Pentax 110 and (possibly the silliest camera I have seen) an instamatic with a dive housing - 4 shots per dive, it uses flashcubes.

Okay... I guess ~I~ stopped caring. It's okay if you (or anyone else) cares about these formats. I spent a lot of my youth using 126 very happily. Once I bought a 35mm I forgot about it. Not long ago I found that camera, a roll of 126, and a box of flash cubes. Even that didn't wake up the urge. For me, 126 is like high school... I really, really enjoyed it but once it was over I moved on. Some things I'm just not terribly sentimental about.

My father-in-law was an avid 110 user until he passed a couple of years ago. 110 used to be found in his neighborhood. After his passing, however, it is nowhere to be found. I blame him for the demise of 110

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Kodak, Fuji, and others will still be making Color Film 2 years from now and probably 10 years from now. There are just to many film cameras still in use for them not too. Not everybody in this world has a computer or a camera phone.

No, not yet. But then again, I have a rotary dial on my phone. Not everyone has a touch-tone pad, but enough do that I often can't call a company that uses the 'Press 1 to reach...' system. At a certain point, the game is up.

I find it funny that everybody keeps predicting Kodaks demise in film but they still have pretty much the same type of product offering that they had ten years ago, except for B&W paper and some specialty films .

Just less of it. A lot less.

And who makes these predictions, anyway? Could it be Kodak's CEO? In January, he said:

http://www.worldofphoto.com/meldung.htm$N18882

Perez told the Financial Times in an interview that the only film sales he cares about are the motion picture film that Hollywood still consumes by the mile. "The movie business is great. Sure it's going to go away, but not in the next two years," Perez told FT. "All I care about is that it stays with us for two years. If it stays - which I think it will - it will be gravy. But if it starts to go down, it won't bother me." As for other types of film, their sales are "going down at a high speed. That's it. There's nothing we can do it about it," he shrugs. "Soon, I'm not going to be answering questions about film because I won't know. It will be too small for me to get involved.“

So you tell me. Who is the big 'doom and gloom' predictor here?

I read in Photo Techniques that Kodak employees got a bonus last year.

Really? I read that the CEO got his pay tripled while Kodak lost 1.3 billion USD last year, and they laid off nearly 25,000 workers and closed numerous flim and photographic paper producing plants:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kodak+closes+plant&btnG=Search

I'm sorry, it is what it is. In the meantime, yes, keep buying and using film. I intend to. Don't mistake what I have to say about the future of film with some dislike of it. I love film. It is superior to digital. It is still going away, faster than most folks can imagine or are willing to accept. My opinion, but I think it is well-grounded in reality.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

That would be quite a list. B&H alone lists 22 types of 120 color print film, and they don't even carry the likes of Ferrania or Maco.

The only things I worry about the long-term availability of are 110, 126, and Kodachrome, all of which are low volume items requiring special tooling or processes. (I would add APS, but who cares if it goes away?)

Now count manufacturers. Not companies that rebrand, I mean companies that coat emulsion and sell it. Kodak, Fuji, Ferrania, Lucky for color film. That's it, to the best of my knowledge. More B&W film manufacturers, including Ilford, Shantou Era, and possibly some FSU makers. The count is decreasing, not increasing.

 

[jmailand]

Original post by Wigwam Jones
Really? I read that the CEO got his pay tripled while Kodak lost 1.3 billion USD last year, and they laid off nearly 25,000 workers and closed numerous flim and photographic paper producing plants:

Kodaks 2005 financial statement is available on their web site if somebody want to read all 220 pages of it. (no I didn't read all of it) They still made 2.2 billion gross profit on (page 38) traditional film and imaging products. They signed a 20 year manufacturing exclusivity agreement with Lucky Film (page 119). Granted sales are declining, but the 20% decline per year figure includes chemistry, photolab, and paper. Many labs now output film prints digitally. Film is not the top dog sales wise anymore, but I still think it will be around for a while.

I also pulled this from the web.

Dead Link Removed

February 2, 2006) — Eastman Kodak Co. is rewarding its U.S. workers for helping the company make substantial progress in 2005 in its accelerating shift from chemical to computerized imaging.

Kodak in April will write bonus checks totaling an estimated $54.5 million to 17,500 employees in the United States. That amounts to 5 percent of the workers' 2005 pay, slightly below last year's bonus of 5.6 percent.

The biggest share of the bonus will again stay in Rochester. Kodak will pay 13,800 local employees a wage dividend totaling $43.5 million.

The average U.S. bonus this year equals $3,114, down about $170 from 2005. Since the bonus is computed on wages, some employees will receive more, and some will receive less.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Antonio Perez said the wage dividend recognizes progress Kodak made in 2005 on key benchmarks, including growth in revenue from digital imaging and improved cash flow.

Kodak last year increased digital revenue by 40 percent, ahead of its goal of 36 percent. The company also generated more than $700 million in cash flow, above its target of $400 million to $600 million. Cash flow is a measure of a company's ability to invest for the future in new products, acquisitions or debt reduction.

"Throughout our transformation, the dedication of Kodak employees has been exemplary," Perez said in a statement. "Through their efforts, we continue to deliver on our strategy and prove that Kodak is a thriving digital company."

The wage dividend, however, also illustrates Kodak's shrinking work force. A year ago, the bonus went to 5,000 more U.S. employees.

Kodak is in the midst of a three-year restructuring that will result in an estimated 22,500 to 25,000 layoffs by the middle of next year. The restructuring has cut Kodak's Rochester work force to about 14,000, the lowest it's been in more than 70 years.

The restructuring is tied to the ongoing shift to digital imaging. Kodak is downsizing its traditional businesses in film and photographic paper while investing heavily in new products and services in areas such as consumer digital photography, health imaging and commercial printing.

While the Kodak bonus isn't the windfall it once was, the local economy will still benefit, an economic observer says.

"It's real money, and you never turn down real money," said Kent Gardner, president and chief executive officer of the Center for Governmental Research. "This is a company that is still paying a bonus, can still afford to pay a bonus and still employs 14,000 people. It will still make an impact."

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have been reading this and getting a good laugh. Let me give you some idea of why...

Earlier on, Wiggy says that he believes that film will be gone by 2008. Then, he says later that he will stand us all a drink if he is wrong. Then he posts this:

"Perez told the Financial Times in an interview that the only film sales he cares about are the motion picture film that Hollywood still consumes by the mile. "The movie business is great. Sure it's going to go away, but not in the next two years," Perez told FT. "All I care about is that it stays with us for two years. If it stays - which I think it will - it will be gravy. But if it starts to go down, it won't bother me.""

This quote that Wiggy posted shows that not even EK believes that film will vanish in 2 years. I don't either. Motion picture sales are still going up. It is the color reversal and B&W area that are going down. Reversal color is being taken over by digital, and only a small segment of high end professionals want B&W (read APUG members here). Color negative is not doing too badly. I don't think that Wiggy really read that quote by Perez.

I'm looking forward to that drink myself. Wiggy is wrong. However there is some truth in the fact that products will vanish and prices will go up. How fast is unknowable, but to prepare for that, you should be aware that making some products only requires a small darkroom and some simple equipment (scales and hot plate with stirrer).

As for chemicals, to make Azo like paper, you need some support and silver nitrate, gelatin and sodium chloride. They are all available from places like the Formulary. (No, I don't get a cut from sales). To make a Kodabromide like paper, you need the above but sodium bromide instead of sodium chloride and you need potassium iodide. You also need hypo and rhodium chloride (also available from the Formulary or from Antec). For a decent film speed emulsion, you also need some ammonium hydroxide 28%. Not a big list, is it? You also need a hardener and a spreading agent for all of these. So, for a modest investment, you can begin cranking out your own liquid emulsions.

With the above ingredients, I have made papers with Azo speed, Multigrade IV speed, and ISO 25 - 50 on film support. Anyone can do it even with no chemical knowledge, but that describes many good photographers. Can you imagine what a high end photographer could command in 10 - 20 years for a traditional B&W family portrait with all ingredients made by hand? I have friends that are already doing some of this and commanding quite good prices for their prints.

In any event, Fuji and Kodak are still making film, but at a reduced rate, and will be doing so beyond 2008. I'm still doing my work as well, comments to the contrary. In fact, that comment earlier in the thread about my work was wholly unfounded.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I meant to include another quote by Wiggy in the above post. Here it is:

"Ron Mowery, a retired Kodak engineer who reckoned maybe he could make his own film, went about attempting it. He is a heck of a lot more experienced at this than I am, probably more than you are, and he was able to get access to some of the hardware needed to make the stuff. I understand it was fairly miserable. To the best of my knowledge, he is no longer attempting it - someone correct me if I am wrong"

I did not "gain access", I made my own with my own retirement $$.

It worked.

I am still working to make it higher in quality and higher in speed.

Due to time limitations, we used the film coatings too soon after drying and had an emulsion separation problem, but otherwise achieved an ISO of about 25 - 50 with ortho sensitivity. The safelights were a little too bright, and so the film was somewhat foggy as well.

Wiggy, you stand corrected! In fact, I have no idea where you made up (oops sorry) got that information you posted. I think I deserve my drink right now for that one! Oh, and sorry to all that I didn't put that in my original post above. I had intended to but too many things were going on here at the time.

PE

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I have been reading this and getting a good laugh. Let me give you some idea of why...

Earlier on, Wiggy says that he believes that film will be gone by 2008. Then, he says later that he will stand us all a drink if he is wrong. Then he posts this:

"Perez told the Financial Times in an interview that the only film sales he cares about are the motion picture film that Hollywood still consumes by the mile. "The movie business is great. Sure it's going to go away, but not in the next two years," Perez told FT. "All I care about is that it stays with us for two years. If it stays - which I think it will - it will be gravy. But if it starts to go down, it won't bother me.""

This quote that Wiggy posted shows that not even EK believes that film will vanish in 2 years. I don't either. Motion picture sales are still going up. It is the color reversal and B&W area that are going down. Reversal color is being taken over by digital, and only a small segment of high end professionals want B&W (read APUG members here). Color negative is not doing too badly. I don't think that Wiggy really read that quote by Perez.

Oh, I read it. And you cut off the cogent part, didn't you?

"Soon, I'm not going to be answering questions about film because I won't know. It will be too small for me to get involved.“

1) Perez admits film is 'going away'. Everybody clear on that part?
2) He says that MOVIE film won't be gone in two years, he hopes (and believes). He did not reverse course, he still said film is going away.
3) You left off the juiciest bit - he thinks film won't even be worth talking about very soon.

Now - my own prediction was and is - color print film gone in two years. I don't think slide film will last that long. B&W will still be around for awhile - maybe as long as a decade.

Let's take another Perez quote:

Dead Link Removed

"Film is gone, and single-purpose cameras are on their way out, too." (Jan 9th , 2006)

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_42/b3955106.htm

"About a quarter of Kodak's consumer film business is disappearing each year -- more than three times faster than executives envisioned in September, 2003, when they declared they would transform the company into a maker of digital products." (October 17, 2005)

So let's reset some misunderstandings, if you don't mind.

I love film. I agree that film is top-notch, great, and all-around super. I use film and digital, but film is definitely superior. I shoot digital to make money, and film to satisfy my soul. Ever buddy clear on that? I don't hate film.

Love it or not, it is going away. And faster than anyone seems able to accept.

I would love to be wrong. No one, not even you, have shown me anything that leads me to believe that film has a future. I don't know from movie film. But color print film - goner. Slide film - goner. B&W film - on life-support. Movie film is made from the same stuff still film is made from - so I can't believe it will live much longer than film for still photography. And I've argued before (convincingly, I thought) that the movie industry does not wag the dog. When film goes, Hollywood will change - kicking and screaming, but they will change. Technology transforms Hollywood, not vice-versa.

This nonsense about digital sales falling off - not from you, but some of the other responses - I go to CIPA and other industry sources and read the sales figures. It is clear as day. I subscribe to PDN and Photo Reporter and other trade mags and I read about the mad scramble, the huge shift, and many faces of desperation at the retail level. I watch mom-n-pop stores going belly up left and right - and yet - some of you think that's not happening. Or I'm just a bad guy for noticing it - mister doom-n-gloom. Whatever.

And I've largely stopped talking about it - sometimes I read a thread that starts out like this - "Please reassure me that film will be around forever," and a bunch of folks give the usual nonsensical reassurances and I have a hard time reading that tripe. Based on nothing but hope, reality out the window, and woe be to he who actually reads the financials, news reports, sales reports, industry reports, and uses his brain for something other than a hat-rack.

I think the plain fact is that many people have difficulty accepting the truth. And they get angry when told it. Sorry. I love film, but I'm not afraid of the future. We can all close our eyes and ears and insist that nothing is wrong, but it won't change anything.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

As for chemicals, to make Azo like paper, you need some support and silver nitrate, gelatin and sodium chloride. They are all available from places like the Formulary. (No, I don't get a cut from sales).

Color film? Nope.

To make a Kodabromide like paper, you need the above but sodium bromide instead of sodium chloride and you need potassium iodide. You also need hypo and rhodium chloride (also available from the Formulary or from Antec). For a decent film speed emulsion, you also need some ammonium hydroxide 28%. Not a big list, is it? You also need a hardener and a spreading agent for all of these. So, for a modest investment, you can begin cranking out your own liquid emulsions.

I never said a person could not make their own paper. I even posited that a person could probably make glass plates. I said that a garage industry making film was right out of the question, for a whole bunch of reasons. It certainly appears I was wrong about making B&W low-speed film - you have done it and I congratulate you. I anxiously await your factory where you will produce B&W film for the industry.

Or are you suggesting that everyone who shoots film will now be making their own film? Does this seem practical to you? Do you think many photographers will do it? I mean, there seem to be quite a few who don't even soup their own negs, do you think they'll make them too?

With the above ingredients, I have made papers with Azo speed, Multigrade IV speed, and ISO 25 - 50 on film support. Anyone can do it even with no chemical knowledge, but that describes many good photographers. Can you imagine what a high end photographer could command in 10 - 20 years for a traditional B&W family portrait with all ingredients made by hand? I have friends that are already doing some of this and commanding quite good prices for their prints.

I am sure that there will always be a market for any high-quality hand-made fine art.

I suspect that the typical magazined editor is going to yawn and demand a JPG in the appropriate format. Who buys more?

In any event, Fuji and Kodak are still making film, but at a reduced rate, and will be doing so beyond 2008. I'm still doing my work as well, comments to the contrary. In fact, that comment earlier in the thread about my work was wholly unfounded.

I will address that in my reply below this one.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

I meant to include another quote by Wiggy in the above post. Here it is:

"Ron Mowery, a retired Kodak engineer who reckoned maybe he could make his own film, went about attempting it. He is a heck of a lot more experienced at this than I am, probably more than you are, and he was able to get access to some of the hardware needed to make the stuff. I understand it was fairly miserable. To the best of my knowledge, he is no longer attempting it - someone correct me if I am wrong"

I did not "gain access", I made my own with my own retirement $$.

Yes, I have been reading that here lately. I was unaware of your postings here, and had only read intermittantly your posts on PN. I read the threads as best I was able, and recall there was some difficulty either getting the 'blades' or getting them to work properly, I don't recall which. You certainly seem to have done a great deal more than I had discovered - and I apologize for my lack of knowledge concerning your progress.

It worked.

So I see. And by the way, congratulations, and I mean that. I think it is an incredible and awe-inspiring accomplishment.

I am still working to make it higher in quality and higher in speed.

Due to time limitations, we used the film coatings too soon after drying and had an emulsion separation problem, but otherwise achieved an ISO of about 25 - 50 with ortho sensitivity. The safelights were a little too bright, and so the film was somewhat foggy as well.

Wiggy, you stand corrected! In fact, I have no idea where you made up (oops sorry) got that information you posted. I think I deserve my drink right now for that one! Oh, and sorry to all that I didn't put that in my original post above. I had intended to but too many things were going on here at the time.

Yes, I do stand corrected, and I'm sorry that my information about your progress was incorrect. I didn't 'make it up', but I did fail to do enough research, and for that, I apologize.

Now, if we can tie this back to my assertations - which were that color film is not like buggy whips. Buggy whips can be made by anyone with access to some simple tools and common supplies. Color film cannot.

Yes, there are numerous sources for photographic chemicals - mostly related to processing film and paper, but some could be used - as you have done, it appears - to make a photo-sensitive suspension (it's not really an emulsion, but I know you know that too) and coat film with it. I posit that many, if not most of those chemicals are made specifically for the photographic industry, and that when they stop needing them, there won't be sources for them. Eastman Chemical was EK's biggest chemical supplier, right? What are they doing these days? Biodiesel, I heard. I'm sure there are stockpiles - but what happens when they're gone?

And you and I both know what would happen if Kodak tried to build a brand-new plant in the USA today to make color film. The EPA would stomp that application into the dirt. Kodak has done a tremendous amount to clean up their environmental act - and I applaud them for that - but making film, especially color film, is a very nasty business, environmentally speaking. You can make buggy whips in your garage - but do you think the EPA is going to let mom-n-pops start cranking out B&W or color film in commercial quantities inside the USA?

Anyway, I could go on - but I have already. I admire the work you're doing, and I hope that there is something happening here that will show me the fool in the end. I am quite prepared to be wrong and admit it, as I said. In the case of your having made film, I was wrong, and again, I apologize.

As to the impeding demise of film...well, I remain unconvinced that my predictions are wrong. Time, of course, will tell.

 

[edz]

A few points that need to be reiterated:

1. EK's CEO Antonio Perez knows very little about film. He's a marketing man who did well at HP selling ink jet printers.
2. Antonio Perez was brought into EK to calm the stock market and send signals that Kodak too can play in consumer digital imaging and not just HP---- which at the time was widely considered by the stock market to be on course to become the "Kodak of Digital Imaging".
3. The stock market is not about business but about beliefs. That's why glamous technology companies without a strong income base tend to get higher value than less sexy companies with solid income base and long track record. Few invest to derive income from dividends but from speculation value.
4. EK is a publicly traded company. Alone in the second half of 2001 EK lost over 41% of its value. Its low in 2000 was almost $60 USD a share but being viewed as a "old economy" player took its toll. EK had record earnings and the stock fell. George Fisher, then CEO, complained of "Bad Image".
5. The downward trend continued and so in 2003 Kodak hired Antonio Perez--- a 25-year veteran of HP. He was hired to send the signal "a digital imaging expert".
6. Antonio Perez main job is to convince the market that Kodak is a digital imaging and NOT a film (translation: High tech and not old school) company.

About film availability:

• Neither cine nor micro nor traffic films shall "vanish" in the next 2 years.
• 35mm perforated microfilm, traffic and cine camera stocks fit in all 35mm cameras.
• Despite subtle differences most 35mm print and positive stocks can be used in most modern 35mm cameras.
• B&W cine stocks may be processed in standard B&W chemistries.
• Its relatively easy to handle ECN-2 process films in a modified C-41 chemistry chain-- the only issue is to remove the rem-jet.
• Same with the VNF-1 process.
• One can get excellent pictorial results from microfilm (and with incredible sharpeness).
• Traffic films have a nice extended red that a lot of people like. Films like Rollei R3 ARE traffic films. Ilford SFX-200 too was a traffic film spooled into little boxes.

 

[JBrunner]

One more point- IMO Perez is an idiot. I don't know if that will help, or hurt.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

A few points that need to be reiterated:

1. EK's CEO Antonio Perez knows very little about film. He's a marketing man who did well at HP selling ink jet printers.
2. Antonio Perez was brought into EK to calm the stock market and send signals that Kodak too can play in consumer digital imaging and not just HP---- which at the time was widely considered by the stock market to be on course to become the "Kodak of Digital Imaging".
3. The stock market is not about business but about beliefs. That's why glamous technology companies without a strong income base tend to get higher value than less sexy companies with solid income base and long track record. Few invest to derive income from dividends but from speculation value.
4. EK is a publicly traded company. Alone in the second half of 2001 EK lost over 41% of its value. Its low in 2000 was almost $60 USD a share but being viewed as a "old economy" player took its toll. EK had record earnings and the stock fell. George Fisher, then CEO, complained of "Bad Image".
5. The downward trend continued and so in 2003 Kodak hired Antonio Perez--- a 25-year veteran of HP. He was hired to send the signal "a digital imaging expert".
6. Antonio Perez main job is to convince the market that Kodak is a digital imaging and NOT a film (translation: High tech and not old school) company.

I won't dispute any of that. However, Fisher is gone and Perez is in. He's not a propped up stuffed-shirt, he runs the company. He has sacked or is sacking a whole bunch of the 'old guard' that refuses to believe that Kodak's future is in digital. Not 'sending signals' here - he's running the company in the direction he wishes it to go. We can argue about whether that's the right direction or not.

Kodak is not losing their collective shirt over their stock price, nor over their failure to support film. They are losing money hand over fist because they are not extracting enough profit from each unit sale of digital cameras (Canon is earning 4x more profit per camera sold) and because they have not moved away from film fast enough.

I have heard the "if only Kodak had stood fast and refused to go digital" argument before. If they had, they'd be bankrupt today, and that's not speculation, that's right off their balance sheets and financial reporting. The shifting market drove Kodak, Kodak did not drive the market. We, the consumers, are the market. We choose digital, and in a big way. Them's facts.

About film availability:

• Neither cine nor micro nor traffic films shall "vanish" in the next 2 years.
• 35mm perforated microfilm, traffic and cine camera stocks fit in all 35mm cameras.
• Despite subtle differences most 35mm print and positive stocks can be used in most modern 35mm cameras.
• B&W cine stocks may be processed in standard B&W chemistries.
• Its relatively easy to handle ECN-2 process films in a modified C-41 chemistry chain-- the only issue is to remove the rem-jet.
• Same with the VNF-1 process.
• One can get excellent pictorial results from microfilm (and with incredible sharpeness).
• Traffic films have a nice extended red that a lot of people like. Films like Rollei R3 ARE traffic films. Ilford SFX-200 too was a traffic film spooled into little boxes.

Traffic film? I admit I didn't take that into consideration. I have a litle trouble believing that it is a major part of Kodak, Fuji, et al's film sales, but I'll look into it. In any case, when they shut down the production lines, the people who make traffic cameras will go digital, presuming they have not already done so.

I said - if anyone cares to read - that I believe B&W films will last perhaps another decade. Color film is bye-bye in two years. Color cine film may last longer than commercial film - Perez believes that, he said - I doubt it. But in any case - this leaves us using 35mm color cine film in cameras. You and I might do that - but Joe Sixpack? He's moved on, brother. He's gone.

And I have no doubt that creative photographers will find equally creative ways to keep using film - even films originally designed for other purposes. I'll most likely be doing it too, if that's what is available.

There will be people with frozen film salted away by the ton, and they'll bring the stuff out like fine rare wine from time to time and sell a bit of it at a dear price. Outdated film will be discovered in the corner of some forgotten warehouse or sold at some abandoned customs sale - it will pop up here or there and we'll pass on the word and run over and bid on it and hope we can still pull photos from it. There will be a lot more discussion about how much past the expiration date one can reasonably go, how much ISO drop to figure in for films ten years past dated, and etc.

Some will say that so long as one roll of film still exists and one camera to put it in, film is not dead. Well, fine, if that's your definition. My standard for 'deadness' is commercial availability. Agfa is dead. Can you still buy some left-over Agfa film? Sure. But there will be no more made. It is dead. I suppose I could throw a roll of APX 100 in the fridge and claim that Agfa will never die, but I'm just fooling myself if I do so.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

One more point- IMO Perez is an idiot. I don't know if that will help, or hurt.

What difference does it make? The end result to us is the same vis-a-vis film we can or cannot buy.

 

[RobertP]

Another tiring "film is dead post"....No mention is made of other companies picking up on the film market as thou great yellow father pulls out. Film will be here long past the 2 year prediction. Kodak is not the only game in town.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wiggy and all;

Just FYI, I have hand coated color! It is possible with common chemicals.

If you can stand to work in the dark with an IR headset for light, you can adapt any of my current work for use in an Ilfochrome like material, which is what I hand coated. It uses standard azo dyes, which are off the shelf.

And, for those who want to do it, Autochrome and Dufaycolor are also possible.

Dye transfer is alive and well and the concept of a 3 color camera is well known.

But in any event, those miles of motion picture film Kodak sells, and the miles of consumer films (Kodacolor Gold types) sold around the world is still keeping the machines running.

So, even color will not vanish.

PE

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Another tiring "film is dead post"....No mention is made of other companies picking up on the film market as thou great yellow father pulls out. Film will be here long past the 2 year prediction. Kodak is not the only game in town.

Tiring? OK, so what do you propose we answer when people ask "Is film dead?" Lie to them? Just avoid answering them?

Other companies picking up the film market? Like which ones, pray?

Film will be around for more than 2 years. My prediction is 2 years for commercial production of color print film, a decade or so for B&W. I base my predictions on reality - on what do you base yours?

You're right, Kodak is not the only game in town. Let's see, for color print film, there is Kodak, Fujifilm, and Ferrania. Lucky also, I think, although I have not seen any color film from Lucky in the US. Anybody else? So the game is small. Not only Kodak, but still very small.

I'm sorry if you're tired of hearing it. Don't read it, then. When people say film is going to live forever, and no facts to back it up, I respond. I could be wrong - theories and predictions sometimes are. I hope I am wrong, actually. But the facts don't point me that way. And you saying "Oh deary me, so dreary, talking about film is dead again" doesn't provide any insight, just your desire not to talk about it. So don't talk about it.

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Wiggy and all;

Just FYI, I have hand coated color! It is possible with common chemicals.

If you can stand to work in the dark with an IR headset for light, you can adapt any of my current work for use in an Ilfochrome like material, which is what I hand coated. It uses standard azo dyes, which are off the shelf.

And, for those who want to do it, Autochrome and Dufaycolor are also possible.

Congratulations! Can we see some of the results? Autochrome dates to the very earliest part of the last century, right? I'd like to see what currently-made Autochrome looks like. Could we agree it won't be anything like Kodak Gold 200?

Dye transfer is alive and well and the concept of a 3 color camera is well known.

Good point. I hadn't considered using three B&W films and three filters, later combining them and assigning colors (like digital sensors?)...clever.

That last one probably wouldn't work in a Pentax Spotmatic, though, huh?

But in any event, those miles of motion picture film Kodak sells, and the miles of consumer films (Kodacolor Gold types) sold around the world is still keeping the machines running.

So, even color will not vanish.
PE

Sorry, but just saying "It won't vanish" doesn't persuade me that it won't vanish. Miles? Sure. So what?

You worked for Kodak, you should understand this; when you slow a factory down to lower output, how much less do you pay your employees per hour? If the answer is that you pay them the same amount, then the problem is that the fixed costs to run a factory really ARE fixed costs. If you make 10,000 rolls of film a day, then you divide that cost into 10,000. If you make 1,000 rolls, then each roll costs ten times more.

Who will buy $30 per roll Kodak Gold 200? You? Me? Anybody? And if so - what about when it is $75? $300?

Kodak and Fuji, et al, built their factories to produce film at maximum capacity. That's where they get the best economy. Slowing the factory down increases costs per unit relative to fixed costs that can't be reduced. What I'm saying is that it is hard to spool a factory like that down. So what happens is you close the factory and move production to another factory, where you combine production to keep it humming at 100%. Then that one drops and you close it and do the dance again.

At a certain point, there are no more consolidations to be made, and the costs begin to climb to produce fewer and fewer items.

You've admitted that product availability will decline and prices will rise. I think a lot before the lights go out. I also think the lights go out a lot sooner than anyone wants to admit. I still don't hear anyone quoting facts that would dissuade me of this. I see factory after factory after factory closing down. I see minds closing down even faster. Just my opinion, but life with blinders on has gotta be rough.

 

[Andy K]

I hope I am wrong, actually.

Of course you do. :rolleyes:

 

[Wigwam Jones]

Of course you do. :rolleyes:

Prove that I'm wrong and watch me change my opinion and wear the hair shirt for your satisfaction. I'm not afraid of being wrong. I just refuse to go along with the crowd just to get along.

 

[Andy K]

Prove that I'm wrong and watch me change my opinion and wear the hair shirt for your satisfaction. I'm not afraid of being wrong. I just refuse to go along with the crowd just to get along.

Those of us from the RangeFinder Forum know this already. You delighted in posting endless Film-Is-Dead threads over there and also hijacking every film thread you could find with your Film-Is-Dead obsession.

Now here you are on APUG doing the same thing. The only difference is here you do not have the protection of a pet moderator so you cannot use the same belittling and trolling language you used on RFF.

Why don't you do yourself a favour? Sell all your film cameras. Go completely digital. Then you won't have to worry about film dying any more and the rest of us won't have to put up with your endless drivel.

Now you'll have to excuse me, I have film to develop and photographs to enlarge.

No doubt you'll have a few more pages to add. :rolleyes:

Ps. Can we get a yawning smiley added to the post options please?

 

[copake_ham]

I second Andy K's motion!

Wigwam Jones (a.k.a. Bill Mattock of RFF) is a F-I-D zealot. Nothing anyone says here - no rational argument of any kind - no evidence to the contrary will stop his endless harranguing.

I put him on my Ignore list (only member thereof, BTW) as soon as he showed up here. I suggest others do the same - it's a lot less stressful that way.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Wiggy;

Autochromes taken during WWI were showcased recently and a URL was posted here on APUG. I'm not going to look it up for you. If you are interested you will do so for yourself. Suffice it to say, the quality was superb and that was from 100 years ago. I saw a tricolor glass slide set produced in about 1887, shown to me from the private GEH collection and it too was outstanding.

My hand coated Ilfochrome is proprietary Kodak property. If you don't believe that I did it, then thats ok with me. I know I did it, and the follow up was a long length machine coating as well, once we showed proof-of-concept from the hand coatings. It went on to become a patent on thermally processed color dye bleach. That is published, but not with pictures. Sorry. But, the formula is in the patent if you are interested.

As far as production figures and costs go, you are sadly in error. Kodak, back 10 years or more ago, ran up to 4 machines at top speed, 7 days / week and 24 hours / day. Now, they run fewer machines for fewer hours with a smaller staff. So, now it may be 2 machines insteead of 4 and they run 5 days a week. Staff were laid off, true and I feel their pain, I truly do because many are friends and neighbors. OTOH, this puts the lie to your facts as the remaining staff can still be well paid for a full work week. And, they produce film and paper in the quantity needed by the current market at a reasonable price.

The major rise in costs so far has been the rise in silver prices, and the rise in oil prices. This latter cascades down to all organic chemicals. Wages at EK have increased as expected along with those in other industries. So, not knowing how film is manufactured, you know nothing about how to cut production scale. You don't even cite some of the major problems facing EK in scaledown, because you don't know what they are.

Just as a small example, the making of an emulsion at a given rate / year becomes more difficult as consumption goes down. This is because the 'wet' emulsion and gelatin spoil just like food in a refrigerator. So, scale back is important, but making less of an emulsion is difficult due to physical and chemical properties of the process itself. This was my specialty at EK for about 15 years. You, on the other hand, have no concept of even the simplest methods of coating or emulsion making.

So, having given you an idea of how wrong you are, lets go on to digital and mention that it uses lead, arsenic, selenium, mercury and a host of chemicals that were eliminated from film years ago to make the EPA happy. Kodak is a rather 'clean' plant as chemical plants go and is cleaning up rapidly. The runoff from digital equipment dumps is becoming a major concern of landfill operators and the EPA is turning its eye on the digital fabrication industry as I type these words. Good luck digital and clean up your act.

So, Wiggy, just as you got things wrong with comments about my personal work from lack of knowledge, you have erred in your other comments about film mfg due to similar lack of knowledge. And, you have made film mfg seem more toxic by avoiding the severe problems now cropping up from digital fabrication.

Yes, film and paper production is way down, and yes a number of products are in danger of vanishing, but the information you present to support your arguments are not good enough or factual enough to support them. Sorry.

Consumer and professional analog products, both color and B&W, will be around well beyond 2008.

PE

 

[DBP]

Just as a small example, the making of an emulsion at a given rate / year becomes more difficult as consumption goes down. This is because the 'wet' emulsion and gelatin spoil just like food in a refrigerator. So, scale back is important, but making less of an emulsion is difficult due to physical and chemical properties of the process itself. This was my specialty at EK for about 15 years. You, on the other hand, have no concept of even the simplest methods of coating or emulsion making.

PE,

Is it reasonable to conclude from this that when the industry reaches equilibrium (and I fully do expect that to occur), the variety of emulsions will be limited by inherent minimal efficient lot sizes? I had expected so based on familiarity with other, mostly unrelated, manufacturing processes. To what degree is the efficient lot size driven by prior tooling investments as opposed to the nature of the processes.

It has been my impression that the same coating equipment is used to produce different films in emulsion batches. I presume that the actual coating equipment varies by process (i.e. b&w, E-6, C-41, and K-14). Is there more overlap than that?

I recognize that you may want to truncate or hedge your answers to the extent that they depend on proprietary data.

DBP

 

[digiconvert]

Wiggy;

Autochromes taken during WWI were showcased recently and a URL was posted here on APUG. I'm not going to look it up for you. If you are interested you will do so for yourself. Suffice it to say, the quality was superb and that was from 100 years ago. I saw a tricolor glass slide set produced in about 1887, shown to me from the private GEH collection and it too was outstanding.......Consumer and professional analog products, both color and B&W, will be around well beyond 2008.

PE

Does anyone believe your superbly argued points will have any effect on 'Wiggy' ? If he is so anti film or film is dead why does he continue to post on a site devoted to film ????