The comeback?

[BrianShaw]

... not again...

... not again...

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

When HIE comes back then I will say film is baaaaaack!

 

[jim10219]

Let's put things back into proper perspective by examining the bar chart here:
https://www.spin.com/2014/05/did-vinyl-really-die-in-the-90s-death-resurgence-sales/
While nothing to sneeze at, even if 2018 sees vinyl sales hit 15 or even 20 million, this is a far cry from the 300M+ of 1979-1980! Still, it seems like vinyl can be a good business to be in, if a company can turn a decent profit at those volumes.

The profit in vinyl is actually phenomenal. I've got a lot of friends in the music industry. A few years ago there was only one company in North America who pressed vinyl. They were booked up months, if not a year in advance, so you typically had to reserve a spot and pay for it before you even recorded the album, or be okay with the vinyl release happening about a year after the digital release. Everyone wanted their album pressed into vinyl, but few could afford it.

Savvy business people saw an underserved market and now there are a ton of vinyl pressing companies in North America, with new one's opening up all of the time. Google Vinyl pressing and you'll see a ton of companies now. One will even press your ashes into a record, for reasons I can't imagine. Now the problem for vinyl manufacturers is finding the equipment necessary to do the work and people who know how to run and maintain them. Finding clients is easy. It may not last forever, and I'm sure they won't all reap huge profits, but for some at least, it has been very profitable business as of late.

That's same business model for film. It won't ever become the only means of photography again. That genie is out of the bottle. But there's still a huge market out there with excellent profitability potential for the companies that want to scale their business according to current market share. It makes no sense to try to produce film in the volume that it was made in in the 1980's. But it makes lot of sense to produce film in smaller volumes, as the film market is growing rapidly.

 

[BMbikerider]

Are fountain pens, typewriters and vinyl records making a comeback?

My Fountain Pen never went away. My handwriting is always neater and more legible with pen and ink. Like a lot of tasks (Photography included) if you think about doing something deliberate then like as not you will make a better job of it rather than scribbling away with a cheap throwaway ball pen or using a camera like a machine gun hoping to get one decent image.

 

[moose10101]

The profit in vinyl is actually phenomenal. I've got a lot of friends in the music industry. A few years ago there was only one company in North America who pressed vinyl. They were booked up months, if not a year in advance, so you typically had to reserve a spot and pay for it before you even recorded the album, or be okay with the vinyl release happening about a year after the digital release. Everyone wanted their album pressed into vinyl, but few could afford it.

Savvy business people saw an underserved market and now there are a ton of vinyl pressing companies in North America, with new one's opening up all of the time. Google Vinyl pressing and you'll see a ton of companies now. One will even press your ashes into a record, for reasons I can't imagine. Now the problem for vinyl manufacturers is finding the equipment necessary to do the work and people who know how to run and maintain them. Finding clients is easy. It may not last forever, and I'm sure they won't all reap huge profits, but for some at least, it has been very profitable business as of late.

That's same business model for film. It won't ever become the only means of photography again. That genie is out of the bottle. But there's still a huge market out there with excellent profitability potential for the companies that want to scale their business according to current market share. It makes no sense to try to produce film in the volume that it was made in in the 1980's. But it makes lot of sense to produce film in smaller volumes, as the film market is growing rapidly.

I don't think the same business model will work for film. There are now a "ton" of vinyl pressing companies because the barriers to entry are low. The technical challenges of opening a film manufacturing facility are probably an order of magnitude greater than vinyl pressing. The difference in financial investment is probably even greater.

 

[faberryman]

Small vinyl operators arose because demand outstripped production capacity. We do not have that problem with film. Quite the opposite. Film roduction capacity vastly outstrips demand. For vinyl, it is a matter of gearing up; for film it is a matter of gearing down.

 

[Luckless]

Small vinyl operators arose because demand outstripped production capacity. We do not have that problem with film. Quite the opposite. Production capacity vastly outstrips demand.

The business lessons that can be taken from the vinyl record industry is that small scale production recovery is completely possible to achieve after the near complete collapse of a far larger industry that was scaled for far greater volumes.

The industry is unlikely to be well served by someone attempting to rebuild Kodak's Building 29 in the middle of a large city like Rochester, and attempting to move dozens of tractor trailers of product in and out every week.
Now a few friends set up in a pole barn on $1000 worth of land in the backwoods of Montana and running an online mail order direct-to-customer film production on a machine that can make a pallet or two a week? If someone can develop a working setup at that scale, then the photographic film industry will have a far more stable leg to stand on long term.

 

[moose10101]

The business lessons that can be taken from the vinyl record industry is that small scale production recovery is completely possible to achieve after the near complete collapse of a far larger industry that was scaled for far greater volumes.

The industry is unlikely to be well served by someone attempting to rebuild Kodak's Building 29 in the middle of a large city like Rochester, and attempting to move dozens of tractor trailers of product in and out every week.
Now a few friends set up in a pole barn on $1000 worth of land in the backwoods of Montana and running an online mail order direct-to-customer film production on a machine that can make a pallet or two a week? If someone can develop a working setup at that scale, then the photographic film industry will have a far more stable leg to stand on long term.

What is the probability that a small-scale working setup could be developed? What would motivate someone to try, in a market where film is still readily available? How long would it take just to get through the environmental impact paperwork?

 

[faberryman]

The business lessons that can be taken from the vinyl record industry is that small scale production recovery is completely possible to achieve after the near complete collapse of a far larger industry that was scaled for far greater volumes

The difference is that the unit of production for vinyl is the record press, which is a small, stand alone hydraulic device operated by one person. There were never any huge machines cranking out millions of records. The way you increase vinyl capacity is to simply increase the number of record presses. Small production facilities have a few record presses. Larger production facilities have more. Quality Record Pressings, the premier audiophile facility, has something like five presses. In 2016, the largest record producer, United Record Pressing, responsible for 40% of US vinyl output, had 39 presses. I toured its facility and it was tiny. No new record presses have been manufactured since the early 1980s, but new vinyl entrants could still acquire one or more mothballed presses and refurbish them. Film is different. Film is made on huge machines run by production crews by a few big players. There are no small film production machines which can be acquired and refurbished. (Film Ferrania and Adox are the exceptions, and they are refurbishing unique machines from defunct large manufacturers that were used for test runs). Small film production machines would have to be made from scratch or large machines have to be modified, all of which would require large infusions of capital. Neither are readily available to third parties. And given the absolute demand, it doesn't make much sense to make the necessary investments.

 

[jim10219]

The difference is that the unit of production for vinyl is the record press, which is a small hydrolic device operated by one person. The way you increase capacity is to increase the number of record presses. Small production facilities have a few record presses. Larger production facilities have more. In 2016, the largest record producer, United Record Pressing, had about 40 presses. (I toured its facility and it was tiny.) No new record presses have been manufactured since the early 1980s, but ew vinyl entrants could still acquire one or more mothballed presses and refurbish them. Film is different. Film is made on huge machines run by production crews by a few big players. There are no small film production machines which can be acquired and refurbished. (Film Ferrania and Adox are the exceptions, and they are refurbishing unique machines that were used for test runs). Small film production machines would have to be made from scratch or large machines have to be modified, all of which would require large infusions of capital. Given the absolute demand, it doesn't make much sense.

Didn't Kodak just do that? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Kodak just bought some all new equipment for shorter production runs. And I think I remember reading that they've been using the new machines to test out the upcoming Ektachrome and the to make the reintroduced TMax 3200.

 

[jtk]

What is the probability that a small-scale working setup could be developed? What would motivate someone to try, in a market where film is still readily available? How long would it take just to get through the environmental impact paperwork?

The latest round of top tier mirrorless camera introductions is only the beginning. $5000 is the price of entry if a pro or "serious amateur" wants the best (like those that once bought Hasselblad)...and that old kit was obviously inferior image-wise to recent 5d2 which was grotesquely larger than the new and superior mirrorless. That's only down-valuation of around $20k over a decade, which is a lot less than the valuation of an old Toyota Prius over that time frame, and Prius isn't even cost efficient, fun, or ego-boosting (tho is as good fuel-wise as the latest).

Which is all to say the ever-increasing cost of digital camera ownership is mostly a concern to people on the margins of financial comfort (like me, sometimes). And I've just convinced myself that HP5, unlike HP4, is a marriage from hell with 1+100 stand processed Rodinal.

The struggles Cinestill appears to suffer may portend something more worrisome about other film ideas.

 

[moose10101]

No new record presses have been manufactured since the early 1980s, but new vinyl entrants could still acquire one or more mothballed presses and refurbish them.

There's at least one Canadian and one German company making new presses. That's the best evidence that vinyl is "back".

 

[faberryman]

There's at least one Canadian and one German company making new presses. That's the best evidence that vinyl is "back".

Possibly now. I'd be interested to know their identities. I have been away from the audiophile industry since 2016, devoting all my time to photography.

 

[jtk]

Canada's best product is (blorch!) poutine.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/yhs...=yhs-Lkry-newtab&hspart=Lkry&hsimp=yhs-newtab

 

[faberryman]

Didn't Kodak just do that? I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Kodak just bought some all new equipment for shorter production runs. And I think I remember reading that they've been using the new machines to test out the upcoming Ektachrome and the to make the reintroduced TMax 3200.

My understanding is that both P3200 and Ektachome are being manufactured on the big machines in Bldg. 38 running at a fraction of capacity.

 

[Luckless]

Large scale photographic film production machines rely on coating wide base materials at high speeds, in very large production runs. If you move the film along at fairly high speeds during the coating process, then that means you need far longer runs to deal with the drying/curing stages - It still takes the same amount of time for an emulsion to harden up after application whether the film moves along at 10mm/s or 10m/s, and that 10m/s is going to cover a lot more ground in the same amount of time, which needs a bigger machine and use more energy to move everything. And if you have a machine in an expensive building that is only running a few days out of the month, then you're eating massive overhead on the setup.

I came across a youtube video a few months back of a very large format photographer who was coating his own film. He taped his film base down onto large glass sheets, placed them one at a time into a coating machine he made which was a rebuilt silk screening rig, and then set on racks to dry before trimming and notching his custom ISO 50 Sheets. I think they were 20x20s.

There was also someone from a few years back who was building a small coating machine in his garage. I think they might have been Australian, but I haven't seen anything in the last few years on the project.

Kodak built their first production machines back when 'computer' was still a job description rather than an object, and we've come a rather long way in design and fabrication ability. If I wasn't currently living in a small apartment I would likely be experimenting with building a coating machine myself. Might still try building one that fits up against the wall behind the entertainment system if I can free up enough in my budget for such a project.

 

[Sean]

There is plenty of tech now in the bio-printing industry that I think could be easily modified to allow for uniform coating of emulsions onto various substrates. I think this will drive a new small batch revolution in coating small runs with custom emulsions. So, instead of the printer laying down ink or cells, you lay down emulsion. The liquid would settle in a uniform way, and you could do multiple coatings as well. It could be done in a small dark clean room. As the sheets exit the emulsion printer they roll through a drying process and are stacked. Maybe the future is Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, selling emulsion cartridges to these small batch producers. If I had enough time, energy and engineering know how I'd probably fire up a kickstarter to try to build an emulsion 'printer'.

 

[wyofilm]

There is plenty of tech now in the bio-printing industry that I think could be easily modified to allow for uniform coating of emulsions onto various substrates. I think this will drive a new small batch revolution in coating small runs with custom emulsions. So, instead of the printer laying down ink or cells, you lay down emulsion. The liquid would settle in a uniform way, and you could do multiple coatings as well. It could be done in a small dark clean room. As the sheets exit the emulsion printer they roll through a drying process and are stacked. Maybe the future is Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, selling emulsion cartridges to these small batch producers. If I had enough time, energy and engineering know how I'd probably fire up a kickstarter to try to build an emulsion 'printer'.

Great idea ... If only I were back in my lab in academia. Creating emulsions has a long history in the biological (and other disciplines) research. I'm sure the organic chemists of photrio remember chromatography being done on slow spinning flat plates. It has been 25 since I used one, but I think we called radial chromatography (can't remember). Really easy to form the emulsion. Simple flow your emulsion fluid near the center of a spinning plate. From there the solution flows out towards the edges. We used this technique to separate organic compounds in reaction mixtures. Pretty simple technology. The center of the plate wouldn't be useful, but plates could be cut around the disk. Very reproducible. Though some up front work required! And I don't know just how big a disk could be done. The disks we used were around 12" in dia, as I recall.

 

[jtk]

This thread hilariously demonstrates why fillums will never again be as important than they are today

 

[eddie]

Like other posters, I never left film. I never found it lacking in any area I use to create photographs. My brief foray into digital (granted, very limited experience) didn't give me the feeling I need to be creative, which the darkroom does. For my goals, the digital process felt too sterile to be conducive to whatever it is which sparks my creativity (probably a few factors, but a tactile relationship with the production is a large part). I have friends who work in the digital realm who create work I admire. It's obvious from their work that digital makes their creative juices flow. There's room under the photographic tent for everyone...

As for the question of whether film is sustainable, I don't worry about it. There's not much I can do about it, so I see no need to panic. All that would do is cause creative paralysis. "I better save that film, just in case I can't get any more". Limiting my use because of the potential a favorite film may no longer be available just means I'm not making photographs. If that film does disappear, I'll move on to a new emulsion. In the meantime, I hope I've made some decent photographs with that film. It's why I don't understand hoarders, especially those that think their photography days are over if their favorite emulsion becomes history.

 

[keenmaster486]

Analog is back, yes, but in small quantities. And it will remain small. Here's why: smartphones. When you have a simple infinite camera in your pocket, you naturally use that for everything "common" like taking pictures of your lunch, or for things that will end up digital anyway like pictures for websites. This goes for music too; for "commonplace" listening you might use your phone 80% of the time; many people will use it 90% or 100%. But when you are listening to music for its own sake, that's when you pull out the vinyl.

In other words, since the digital revolution analog media will never be able to compete on convenience, nor should that be thought of as a bad thing! What people have discovered is that convenience is not everything. Sometimes they need an experience. That is what analog does best and what digital can never equal, simply by definition.

Therefore there will always be a market for analog media, but never as big as it once was because it's fulfilling a different purpose now than it did before.
We have to remember it's not about quantity here. It's about "does it exist or not?" Analog never died. It transformed.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Do you have any evidence for that?

Digital gear is relatively inexpensive shot for shot. If you bought the latest £2k camera every couple of years and traded in your old model, it would still be less expensive than shooting film.

That's a different subject. Two things are killing digital camera production, smart phones, and lack of digital camera innovation. Most people would be hard pressed to tell a 2018 digital photograph from a 2008 one under normal conditions. iPhones provide everything non-enthusiasts want from a camera, and make up much of the vlogging market.

What are you comparing? All MILC cameras vs Instax and Polaroid cameras, or the popularity of instant films? A typical MILC runs between x6 to x20 the price of an instant film camera. Instant photography is a growing niche but it hasn't returned to the professional film ranks.

Film is dead to most people, no question. They don't use it and are surprised why anyone else does.

digital is not that inexpensive shot for shot if you consider the entire expenses: camera, computer, software and printing; easily$3/shot and constantly updating it all.

 

[BMbikerider]

Trying to get away from the 'digital/film which is best argument' . Forget what you are using and more about what you are using it for. I don't think there is any question about the fact that more photographs have been taken since the advent of digital than since Fox Talbot created his first negative that could be printed time and time again. The question is, ask yourself how many of these images created today will stand the test of time and be available to be looked at in say 150 years time?

Photography has recorded social history since the early 19th century simply because a print was made from the negative or other recording medium and a good number of these have lasted right up until today. Then ask yourself, out of all the millions and millions of pictures taken today how many will exist after the next century and a half? I will wager that in proportion it will be less and less. Why? Simply because very few are printed onto paper where they can be held seen or even mounted and framed. OK, An incredible number are recorded on IPhones, tablets etc but when the device is changed do the owner.s transfer them from one to the other? Then there is the possibility of the devices failing and masses of images lost. When the memory in these devices are full, are they downloaded? I bet most users simply delete the oldest or the ones they don't like and re-record over the top.

OK, supposing all things necessary to preserve them are carried out, can we be certain that there will be suitable equipment made or available to enable the data to be read? Even 20 years ago when floppy discs were all the rage, how many computers now can read a floppy disc? I personally don't give a tinker's cuss about the way we take pictures but I do care about preserving the information that they hold and can preserve for future generations. Even if I never ever printed one of my photographs, I still have the negatives to refer to if I need to print something.

There are a couple of well known officil institutions in UK who need to take photographs to record their work still use simple black and white photographs, knowing that they will last many many years

As a final word. If something is worth recording, make it permanent as can be.

 

[removed account4]

A few years ago there was only one company in North America who pressed vinyl.

hi jim
is transco in NY still the only place that makes lacquor plates ? back when i had a cutting lathe it was pretty much them and
(supposedly there was another place on the western us coast i could never ID /locate )
if you ever watch "how its made" transco is featured
john

 

[removed account4]

... not again...

... not again...

no kidding
i just realized how this thread morphed into a FVD thread
with the usual nonsense and antics of people saying the same old same old...

digital is not that inexpensive shot for shot if you consider the entire expenses: camera, computer, software and printing; easily$3/shot and constantly updating it all.

maybe ... it depends on what your print methods are .. sometimes the cost of pigments+inks is the thing that
ups the price of a digital image, if it is printed at all .. unfortunately people, no matter their skill set, expertise &c
don't make prints of their masterpiece. and as the guy who did one of the podcasts used to say " its not a photograph if its not a print"

go to the stores in my neighborhood and you'll see what's dead or laughed out the store if you ask for film!

sounds like you need to go to a store that caters to your needs? buy on amazon &c