The comeback?

Movies shot on film are immediately converted to digital for editing. Very few theaters even have the capability to project film.

 

That was my point. The move to convenience has sacrificed quality. Par for the course.

 

As some of you may know, I own a photo shop / minilab (established 1985) in rural Ireland, local population 65k , catchment population 100K (approx).
Digital printing on RA4 paper is our labs business. We are the only lab left in town ( in the 1990's there were 4).
The digital printing onto photo paper is surviving and has increased 10% over the last 3 years. Customers are making prints from their phones.

We also offer 35mm C41 and B&W film processing, by instore and online. We have seen an increase in volume of 10% (on average) each year for the last 3 years. So much so that I was able to justify the expense of having the film processor refurbished last year. We run the C41 every day, none of this Tuesday & Thursday only.
The instore film porcessing is 90% dev & print, 5% dev & CD, 5% dev & upload google drive.
The online film processing is 90% dev & upload google drive, 10% dev & CD

In 2018, film processing was 8% of my turnover, 2016 it was 5%. Make what you like out of that. For me it's music to my ears.
(I purposely have used percentages as any other figures are my own business and not any ones else's. Yes I know it's just a local view and without industry figures to compare to it, may have no bearing on the global figures)

 

The for those who's abilities and desires have gone to scanning, crossing the Rubicon can be a very real thing. Just because you and many others find the old process easy and fun doesn't mean that all these scanning folk do or will.

 

Thank you for sharing that.

 

I don't know whether it has or hasn't, but those of us committed to film/darkroom should be thankful for scanners. They play a huge role in the ability for more people to participate in contact printing processes. Platinum, cyanotype, kallitype, VDB, etc. These processes are now available to a larger segment of photographers, thanks to digital advances in scanning and printing. In fact, I think we're not far from printers being designed to facilitate the creation of digital negatives for the home user in an easier manner. Young artists will be making cyanotypes from their iphone photos. Perhaps a few of them will develop an interest in giving silver gelatin a try.
Neither method of image making functions in a vacuum. They are not at odds.They often benefit from each other.

 

Are you sure that there wasn't a digital intermediate?
It certainly appeared to have been digitally edited, when I saw a digital projection of it.

 

This sounds like photographic Stockholm Syndrome. I was kidnapped and starved for 20 days, but then they fed me and when I realized I'd be dead without their help I had no reason not to like them.

Well if you are going to make a quantitative statement I'm going to have to insist on actual numbers showing that more people are participating than they did before scanners existed.

 

Shot on 70mm, edited on film (conformed actually I think they used an avid) and release prints were struck for what venues could handle the prints. Everyone else got digital...

It certainly wasnt a totally pure film to film production: https://www.provideocoalition.com/AOTC-DUNKIRK-JOHN-LEE

Look, I work on a Steenbeck daily in 35mm, but I don't cut on one. I just view processed dupe negs, interpositives and theatrical prints that I time. I make no bones about being glad I don't have to cut features on a flatbed, but some people still like it...

 

I don't know what is so hard to believe that many of the people working with digital negatives wouldn't be if a large camera negative was a requirement. There are people on this site using digital negs for their alt work.

 

Thank you for the info and the link, which I mostly understood .
It certainly helps explain why even the digital screening I saw looked so impressive.

 

I find it hard to believe that more people are doing contact printing now because of scanners than they were before scanners...that requires numbers in order for me to believe it. I would be surprised, yes.

 

It doesn’t matter. It’s about covering costs and making some $, fail to do this and you will be out of business soon. Digital was ‘good enough’ to allow this years ago. The DCP Master website have a stat on there claiming over 90% of theatres use DCPs which shows how large the conversion to digital projection has been.

Still an interesting topic to debate!

 

This is a really interesting point. Can pre-negative files be developed in the computer before producing a neg?

 

you are probably right, but we don't live in that reality at the moment. but in this day and age
the general public ( and some hardened well shown artists ) use scanners and digital techniology
in their work on a regular basis, and have for decades. its an establised medium and works well for some people,
and for others, understood it is the spawn of the devil &c.

yup
and not just ink or pigment negatives but those worked on by a computer and projected with a digital enlarger head onto
traditional photographic film. or onto overhead transparancy film ( or paper ) spit out by a xerox machine. while i have read deep into how to do it
and have made contact to contact PAPER negatives i've never done it using restrainers &c & ortho/litho film as described on
the unblinkingeye by ed buffaloe and liam lawless and others, it IS easier and gives great results and a known quantity to use electronic means.
and these alternative techniques have opened photography up to people who would never have done it or could never have done it ( and maybe gotten them hooked )
its not too far fetched to see somebody in the years to come to use an electronic image making system ( their phone? tablet? retinal implant? ) have
a large FILM negative made and a print created using an image making technique from the 1860s which will last forever...
i'm doing similar things with tiny crappy cellphone images made into cyanotypes ... and im looking forward to the "brother from another planet" type implant.

 

I think there are members who are producing digital negatives for alt processes, using tweaked digital files before printing on Pictorico transparency film. I don't know the details (not doing it myself) but I assume they use profiles specific to the process.

 

I said there's the ability for more people to explore contact printing processes because of digital technologies. I don't have numbers, but there are certainly more printers capable of producing large negatives than there are 8x10 cameras.

 

If the ability isn't being utilized by more people than contact printed before, then its a moot point.

 

There’s no doubt that it is.

 

There is some truth to this but it is a moot post, since the topic was what if scanning had never existed, and its affect on film.

 

Yet there is value in the idea, it's just that the relative numbers are unclear. That said, even if the numbers are equal or 2-to-1, 3-to-1, that would be a lot not using traditional analogue methods. An exact number would give us the degree but input from folks on the site can get us close.

I found this pertinent concerning market trends for Photo Chemicals. It suggests:
December 2018 Chemical imbalance: Weak demand for photographic chemicals will continue to hinder revenue growth

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-.../chemical/chemical-product-manufacturing.html

I does suggest something of a position in the marked for photo, supporting thoughts that film may have reached a threshold and questions growth.

I have nothing on film scanners, though: the internet searching I do is dominated by link to retailers and reviews.

 

Scanning isn't necessary but it's nice. I actually enjoy it (Nikon V and an old Epson for larger film).

There have always been internegatives.

I made plenty of internegs from Ektachrome and Kodachrome originals before I even heard of desktop scanning. Those internegs were easy to print... better for anything other than portraits and weddings than common color neg film. That's how most fine color prints were printed.

Kodak itself used 75mm and other sizes of interneg film to make customers' prints from slides...customers weren't even aware of that unless they specified that they wanted to buy those internegs.

Kodak made WONDERFUL interneg C41 film in 4X5 and 8X10 for labs and serious photographers before desktop scanners were available (but skilled use of non-interneg film could be very good). And of course, we had Type R paper (Ektachrome and Ciba). I printed Ciba but it was a pain and it was far from "archival."

If by "affect on film" you mean "effect" and how did desktop scanners impact the film market, I'd say photographers mostly leaped at the opportunity to make more prints when inkjet printers got perfected...but of course, Kodak lacked even the rudimentary marketing brainpower to take advantage. The important part of the inkjet market is pigment, not paper or machinery. Therefore Kodak decided to make crappy printers after Epson already controlled the market...and their sales pitch was that Kodak printers didn't use much pigment ! It was too late for a firing squad at Kodak.

 

This is nothing new. Of course there is, and has been, a decline. But that does not mean it will continue to the point of the death of analog photography. It is evident by the growth of the analog portion of this site over the years that a strong interest in analog photography continues.

It is important to stress that film is a very high quality, viable photographic medium and its continued use should be promoted in the interest of the photographic community, not be killed off as you continue to try to do with your doom-for-film posts.

 

Yes.

 

That's totally unfair to Mike. He's been posting about real-life realities.

He's a photo educator who's been defending the otherwise hard-to-justify place of analog photo in taxpayer-paid education.