SaveFilm.org

Henning Serger · Oct 31, 2014

Hello friends,

for your information:
http://www.savefilm.org/

And have a look at the supporter list, the best names of Hollywood:
http://www.savefilm.org/supporters/

I think that is worth to be supported, so I've signed the petition.

Best regards,
Henning

Sean · Oct 31, 2014

Interesting. I've signed and asked if there is anything I can do to help out.

Sean

Steve Roberts · Oct 31, 2014

Interesting. I've forwarded the link to David Puttnam's educational foundation, as I don't see his name there.
Steve

georg16nik · Oct 31, 2014

Hi Henning,

Just signed in.

Henning Serger · Oct 31, 2014

Sean said:
Interesting. I've signed and asked if there is anything I can do to help out.

Sean

Hello Sean,

probably one option to help (and a very easy one) is to further spread the word:
You could implement a link to savefilm.org on the apug facebook page for example.
All others here, who are active on facebook or any other social media (and other photo forums) could do the same.
The more people are informed, the better......

Best regards,
Henning

film_man · Oct 31, 2014

So....how would UNESCO ensure film production then? Should individual governments pay the manufacturers to make something? Or should they just force them? Or maybe nationalise the film producing factories and just make the stuff hoping people will buy it?

MDR · Oct 31, 2014

Why not that's how digital won against film, the switch from film to digital projection in Europe was heavily subsidies by the EU and the indivdual member states. Corporations worldwide are highly dependant on state subsidies free market what a joke. Film is culture and the UNESCO is here to help preserve culture and it's not like they have to shell out mega Billions per year to preserve film.

benjiboy · Oct 31, 2014

I've signed it, but don't see how if manufacturing film isn't commercially viable for a company because of the lack of sales volume how you can force it to continue making it, and convince the shareholders to do so.

PKM-25 · Oct 31, 2014

"With the advent of digital, the medium of film is gravely threatened and might, unless action is taken, simply disappear. Its obsolescence will result in untold tragedy in all that we will no longer be able to see and experience, and also in what we will no longer be able to make, because we will have simply lost the technology to do so."

I wonder how Simon Galley at Ilford Harman feels about this statement since the company is doing well and sales are "Robustly Profitable"? The problem I see with this kind of sounding of the alarm is that the media feeds off of it. For example this kind of story will always be above the fold compared to Ilford doing well.

I will watch the progress of this a bit more and probably sign it. But the broad statement alarmism, ouch....it is almost as bad as how poorly APUG stays the course on being positive and universally promoting of film.

Richard S. (rich815) · Oct 31, 2014

PKM-25 said:
"With the advent of digital, the medium of film is gravely threatened and might, unless action is taken, simply disappear. Its obsolescence will result in untold tragedy in all that we will no longer be able to see and experience, and also in what we will no longer be able to make, because we will have simply lost the technology to do so."

I wonder how Simon Galley at Ilford Harman feels about this statement since the company is doing well and sales are "Robustly Profitable"? The problem I see with this kind of sounding of the alarm is that the media feeds off of it. For example this kind of story will always be above the fold compared to Ilford doing well.

I will watch the progress of this a bit more and probably sign it. But the broad statement alarmism, ouch....it is almost as bad as how poorly APUG stays the course on being positive and universally promoting of film.

Agree.

MDR · Oct 31, 2014

PKM25 Savefilm is about saving motion picture film and less about saving still film. The first is not being produced by Ilford (not anymore). B/W movies also usually fail at the cinemas and in the sales department no matter how much many filmmaker would love to shoot B/W. So again this is not about saving film for still photographers who can and do use B/W films from small niche mfg but about saving film for motion picture use. Film is magic not only on the printing paper but also on the silver screen and mp film is worth saving just as much as still film. If film as origination medium for movies is lost the world will lose some of its magic.

PKM-25 · Oct 31, 2014

MDR said:
PKM25 Savefilm is about saving motion picture film and less about saving still film. The first is not being produced by Ilford (not anymore). B/W movies also usually fail at the cinemas and in the sales department no matter how much many filmmaker would love to shoot B/W. So again this is not about saving film for still photographers who can and do use B/W films from small niche mfg but about saving film for motion picture use. Film is magic not only on the printing paper but also on the silver screen and mp film is worth saving just as much as still film. If film as origination medium for movies is lost the world will lose some of its magic.

Yes, of course, the issue I have with it is that if the media picks up on and it reports, it is the broad use of the term "film" in a negative sense is what I am concerned with. They need to be more clear in their distinction of motion picture film use as opposed to still picture film use.

These little details are what keep the notion that one can not buy film anymore in play as one of the best weapons the digital movement has.

flavio81 · Oct 31, 2014

For the reasons explained above, I also don't feel this is such a good idea. "Save film"?!

What we need is a campaign to promote that film is alive and kicking, to quote Ferrania's latest slogan.

PKM-25 · Oct 31, 2014

flavio81 said:
What we need is a campaign to promote that film is alive and kicking, to quote Ferrania's latest slogan.

+1

MDR · Oct 31, 2014

Flavio and PKM-25 film is alive barely it is kicking like a Baby against a tree trunk sadly that is. The project is promoted by some of the best known actors, directors and DOPs in the World. Having big names like Chris Nolan, Quentin Tarantino, Guilermo Del Toro attached to this project puts film back into the public concious/awareness and screams film is not dead you silly digital using twits it's still alive and its a superior product why else would people like Tarantine, Del Toro and Nolan still prefer film if it wasn't a superior product. This in turn will also have and influence on how the general public perceives film. Students might say hey my fav director and some thousand people still use film and like it maybe I should try it in my dad's old camera. Mass is important if a 100000 people say they like film and it's great it might make people think that's why it is important to call this thing savingfilm because in a way it just might help the sales of still film as well. Not everybody can pay 200$ for 400ft can of film but 4$ for a roll of film is manageable and hey they use something that those great artists use.

PKM-25 · Oct 31, 2014

MDR said:
Flavio and PKM-25 film is alive barely it is kicking like a Baby against a tree trunk sadly that is.

Wow, and here I thought Ferrania had a fighting chance and Ilford was doing really well....shows you what I know.

Google is a powerful thing in that what you just said above which is about Motion Picture Film will just appear as film in general.

These broad statements are what I believe to be the number one thing that the media picks up on that translates to a potential customer of film to not even bother. It's time to fix that and it has to start with making changes to this site. I meet hundreds of people per year when I am working and the topic of film comes up a lot. The number one thing people say is that they did not think they could even get it anymore. When I ask them why they say that is what they heard or read on the Internet in some news piece, every damn time!!!

Honestly, we need to actually make this site worth something and DO something about this. If not, then truly...what in the hell is the long term value of APUG?

benjiboy · Oct 31, 2014

All the clutching at straws hair tearing and chest beating isn't going to make a blind bit of difference to the final outcome because in the final analysis you can't make companies manufacture products that are unprofitable. I've been shooting film for 61 years and don't own a digital camera, but I don't believe in burying my head in the sand you have to face facts.

MDR · Oct 31, 2014

My statement might have been harsh but I still consider it somewhat true. Film is Film wether it is shot at 24fps in a moviecamera or at 1 fps in a Hasseblad so if the MP-World uses less film or stops using film it has an impact on overall filmsales and the health of the Film mfg. wether its a smaller company like Foma, a mid sized company like Ilford or a big corp. like Kodak. Saving MP-Film means saving or at least helping still film so the name of the project is imo correct. Also Ferrania is a niche producer who is dependant on good press so if film is cool because Tarantino uses it they profit from that, if Taratino has to use digital because he can't shoot film and bemoans that fact then Ferrania will also get hit. Film mfg. is an eco-system what happens to one part of the system will have an effect on other parts of that system.

I consider it destructive to try to split up the eco-system in two fractions the mp-world and the still photography world they are interconnected and yes they both use film. So save film is an apt name.

One big advantage of that campaign as opposed to some posts on APUG is the message that film and digital can co-exist this makes it more accesible to digital (movie and still) users.

PKM-25 · Oct 31, 2014

Ilford is doing well and will continue to do well. But the wording at Savefilm that sounds if it all on the brink is not helping them. Yes, there are some good things being said on the site too but time and time again has proven that in terms of what the media puts in the bigger font, well if it bleeds it leads, so if at all possible we need to not enable that.

We all have to change the way we fundamentally talk about film. I go to great efforts to inspire and educate people around me in terms of film use, I am starting to see an effect in that. Good enough is no longer good enough, in order for film to not only survive but thrive, ours has to be the "Perfect" storm.

With the onset of what I call the "Digital Hangover" starting to really kick in, film is in a great light right now. Again, the single most destructive thing to film's future in terms of PR are these lump everyone into one basket broad statements.

I make it a big part of my job to be out in the public sphere in what is one of the most influential towns in the world. Those broad statements do far more harm than you can possibly imagine...

Xmas · Oct 31, 2014

Hi Ben

Impossible are struggling to break even but are available retail on Sundays and lots of people use. They are putting a lotta money into improvement.
Ferranni's kickstart was good.
Ilford do a custom preorder once a year.
Adox still sell film
Forma still sell film
Orwo did last time I spoke to distributor
Only Fuji and Kodak have problems.
Kodaks accounts show 'legacy sales' declining & from the tone - they are using the profits invested in new ventures they see more future in.
Fuji are dumping agfa vista as well as normal £ for green boxes cancelling films etc.
Some people are upset their favorite film has dissappeared as was I in 2003 when mine went.
The infrastructure is disappearing retail outlets processing labs etc. This is inconvenient.
110 film has reappeared in local shops mono, c41 and E6, in good quality cassettes. I have scalpel wounds from dismantling.
Times are changing but it is not the end of the world yet.

Noel

MDR · Oct 31, 2014

1. Digital photography as we know it is dying

2. Digital photography is reborn it's called Smartphone

3. Impossible has a sugar daddy so does Fuji the first is Lomography and the latter the Keiretsu

4. Adox still sell but do they actually still make film they constantly talk about it

5. Orwo sells motion picture stock and is one of the rare case were motion picture film production and still photography are pretty much in harmony

6. What get's to me although I do get PKM-25 point is that still photographer didn't have a problem having their fav. product subsidized by the Motion Picture film divisions of their respective fav. mfg. and now that the mp division(s) is/are in trouble they say don't throw us in with these loosers still film is doing well so we don't wanna hear anything bad coming from the MP-Division. As a side note Kodak still produces more MP-Film than Still Film.

Old-N-Feeble · Oct 31, 2014

I just signed the petition but it'll do little or no good. What greases the gears of industry is money... not signatures.

PKM-25 · Oct 31, 2014

MDR said:
6. What get's to me although I do get PKM-25 point is that still photographer didn't have a problem having their fav. product subsidized by the Motion Picture film divisions of their respective fav. mfg. and now that the mp division(s) is/are in trouble they say don't throw us in with these loosers still film is doing well so we don't wanna hear anything bad coming from the MP-Division. As a side note Kodak still produces more MP-Film than Still Film.

Of course I get this, which is why I will sign the petition and suggest to them that we still and motion users of film work better together. The MP industry is mentioned often enough on here but I am not seeing the other way around being the case.

I am not playing sides, just trying to relay my direct experience in talking to several hundred people in person about film over the past 5 years or so. It's not a blame game because this fight is all hands on deck.

MDR · Oct 31, 2014

Go to cinematography.com and you will find quiet a few examples of discussions about Still photography and films. Cinematographers even sometimes shoot film that was made for still photography. But I agree we film users should fight together and promote the use of film in general be it MP, Still, Speed traps, Surveillance, Aerial, etc... Film is special, film is part of our cultural identity and film will still exist when the last Apple or Window PC turns to dust.

Xmas · Oct 31, 2014

MDR said:
1. Digital photography as we know it is dying

2. Digital photography is reborn it's called Smartphone

3. Impossible has a sugar daddy so does Fuji the first is Lomography and the latter the Keiretsu

4. Adox still sell but do they actually still make film they constantly talk about it

5. Orwo sells motion picture stock and is one of the rare case were motion picture film production and still photography are pretty much in harmony

6. What get's to me although I do get PKM-25 point is that still photographer didn't have a problem having their fav. product subsidized by the Motion Picture film divisions of their respective fav. mfg. and now that the mp division(s) is/are in trouble they say don't throw us in with these loosers still film is doing well so we don't wanna hear anything bad coming from the MP-Division. As a side note Kodak still produces more MP-Film than Still Film.

Fuji MP film is not in trouble they merely stopped lots of cine film manufacture. It is not relevant unless you use cine - I do BTW.

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/04/fuji-ends-production-motion-picture-film

They only do one mono Acros, that annoyed me as well.

You can still shoot film if at least one manufacturer makes one film type.

It has not reached that point and Ferranni plan on a reintroduction in April.

Sally Mann uses wet plate.

SaveFilm.org

Admin

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency