The facts of film production

film production

Hello Ron:I've just finished reading all the replys to your topic.Maybe what I have to say on the subject is a little too simplistic but here goes.If you don't buy and use traditional film and paper,then we will all lose out.Companies like Kodak,Ilford and Fuji are not in this line of business just for the heck of it.I still buy Kodak B&W chemicals because they are the best quality available and are convenient to use.True they might be a little more expensive,but like you said,Ron,Kodak has done all the hard work,the R&D,product testing and re-testing and the other companies have used Kodak's data to produce their product,more or less.

So, in conclusion,if you want quality then you'll have to pay for it.If you want the lowest price and sacrifice quality,then that is the individuals decision.But don't expexct to get both,because it won't last very long.I still prefer to spend a little more,get a quality product and keep Kodak going.

Thanks for listening to my rant.

Doug

I’ve read some contributions only on the first page and on the last one. I couldn’t stay all these lamentations. If somebody made a constructive comment, I pray him/her to forgive me, but I simply couldn’t read all the replies, because of the pathetic tone of their majority. Now, here’s my point, but first read my credo/signature here below, and excuse the length of my intervention.

First B/W film. It is more a creative, fully rewarding process, easy to be controlled and influenced by the photographer itself, from the shooting to the final print. Does digital do the same thing? Maybe, but in a different way, and with different results. Film has grain, which is vibration – can you say the same about the digital noise? Can you say that burning and dodging with your hands like a sculptor, is the same with changing curves with the mouse? Can you compare the “bar” atmosphere of the darkroom (as I read somewhere and liked so much), to the office atmosphere when working on a computer? And the results: inkjet or laser prints can replace the offset, but never the silver gelatin… B/W film is far superior and rewarding than B/W digital, and because of that it has to live, and it will if… – see further and my next post.

In color print film things are opposite. The level of manipulation is quite nonexistent, except for the shooting where you can chose between UV, sky, polarizer or correction filters (waw!). Color print film is only a recording support, and it is condemned to be replaced by digital, like CDs replaced vinyls.

Color reversal film has more chances to continue to live than color print film, but only if people will develop and frame the slides themselves. What the heck, I remember that, when university student 30 years ago, I used to develop and frame myself my color slides, and it was far more easy than to develop and print B/W reversal. That’s why I was shooting lot of reversal those days. But today I’m not so sure that reversal will survive, neither that it will vanish. It’s weakness is that it leaves no place to process manipulation, like the B/W print film. You can far more influence the image in digital, and show your D-slide show to your friends on your HD home video outfit you are so proud of… But again, the grain in film slides makes vibrate the image, while the noise in the D-slides will make your friends ask questions about the quality of your HD monitor you paid so expensive…

Back to B/W film: Did it not survive when color film came in? It was than the big shake! Now, with digital it’s nothing. Oh, I forgot: 99% of professional photographers have abandoned it for digital! Only artists are still using it, and artists are poor… If so, than the manufacturers of film and photo sensitive paper should adapt. Of course, now the new clients are influencing the production, not the manufacturers their clients – ops, this is a power change! Fortunately, there are not all manufacturers like Kodak. Ilford at least tries and succeeds at short term to manage the change even if they don’t understand it at all: they still live in the professional elitist heaven, until it will shift to hell. Fuji seams to understand these changes a little bit more, and tries to move forward, step by step. But my biggest respect goes for ADOX-Fotoimpex who’s the model for the future manufacturer of photosensitive material.

B/W film has fully potential to survive, not to the digital era, but to the betrayal by most of the professionals. The technology is irreplaceable by digital, in quality and in reward, and a new B/W photographer is coming in (and I include here the old photographers who still shoot film – they do not realize yet, but they change too). And this new photographer brings with him his own needs, which are new too.

What are these new needs? There are two: materials and price.

For an artist perfection is less important than expressiveness. And while perfection is expensive, expressiveness is not. The easiest example is the grain: it vibrates. The same for the tones. Both made Tri-X famous, and Tri-X is far cheaper to produce than T-grain films. Just remember what critics said at that time: Tri-X is the worst film ever made – muddy (like carbon) and full of grain, but public likes its tones and even its grain!

What for new, or better said old, recuperated and actualized products: B/W Polaroids, B/W slides, etc. Oh, how much I would like to see again a huge image, this time vibrating in B/W, and all these without the hecks of printing ultra large!

How many films does this new client burn to sell a single print? Hundreds! Yes, statistically there are hundreds! Of course, here are included not only those who sell several prints each month, not only those selling several prints each year, but also those who sell several prints their whole life or those who never sell a print. This doesn’t mean that the last ones do not buy films and papers, on the contrary! These last ones are the majority of the new clients: they don’t make a living of photography, but this doesn’t mean they don’t shoot. Sometimes these people shoot a lot more than those who sell, because they are doing it by pure passion. Without them, film would have been condemned to disappear. This is what film manufacturers don’t get: goodbye professionals, hello amateurs and artists, many unrecognized artists! What does this mean? A maximum of $2US/roll. If more, film will die.

Ops, but at $2US/roll the manufacturer will get broken… Not at all! This is the price he sells the film to the retailer, who doubles it. So, goodbye retailers! They form a structure that doesn’t work with the new client and his needs. Not only because of the price issue, but also because retailers make a huge network, too huge for the new client. Because for them selling film is less efficient than selling digital (selling rates are lower and profits marginal, storage is expensive, needing freezers and electricity, etc.). In fact, retailers are no more interested in selling film, not clients in buying it. Here Ilford and ADOX-Fotoimpex made both a smart move: they simplified the retailer network, and they won. Kodak instead, stopped to produce the Tri-X and photosensitive paper. And things can go further: buying from manufacturers directly. Yes, the new client likes to stock at home, not as much as a retailer did before, but in the meantime they are more in number than the retailers. So the manufacturer doesn’t need to stock the product at the place of retailers, the client does it, and the client pays for space, freezer and electricity. This is also a reason to sell him the product at $2/roll. It’s like moving the work from an expensive office at the employee home. And this is perfectly possible with the Internet. It’s only a question of thinking and adapting. And this is the intelligent Darwinism, not waiting and lamenting. And if Europe and US won’t do it, China, India and Pakistan will (which is not bad at all). For the new client, what counts is to pay no more than $2US/roll.

So, I’m going to buy an used digital and two dozens of B/W film (one 35mm and another 120), as well as two bricks of paper (RC 8x10’’ and FB 11x14’’), all expired until prices will drop.

phenix,

You are quite wise in looking beyond Europe...
The current development of the US-dollar, which is not a worldwíde, currency, will make it harder for European manufacturers/sale houses to serve the US-dollar market.

But you should also listen to those voices from within the industry that state that pictorial photography alone will not be able to sustain their production.

You take Fotoimpex as example for a new way of doing business. However there is no indication that the new production facility they want to make use of has been built for coating photographic film, quite the contrary.

Photo Engineer said:

Old timers had pages of film types available to them as well as pages of papers and surfaces available. All of these were available in various sizes and formats.

Click to expand...

I would frankly argue to the contrary. While there used to be a greater diversity of paper available the problem today is not a result of declining demand but of environmental standards. Some papers used to have shelf lives measured in in decades (some of the Gaevert papers were made only once or twice and sold over a longer period of time). Today's papers can't use the heavy metal salts (such as Cadmium) and so spoil quicker and are more costly to store.

Today, we are limited to roughly 3 major sizes and a few minor sizes of paper and film and a lot fewer product lines.

Click to expand...

The de-facto diversity of B&W film available today is enormous. Decades ago there were in any given market only a few films to choose from. The logistics of getting special films was costly and time consuming.

In 35mm materials suitable for our cameras I can get today:
- A number of ortho films
- A number of microfilms including Agfa (while Agfa Copex Rapid is no longer available from Agfa with 35mm performations it is still available), Kodak and Fuji are available with double perforations.
- A number of extended red films (why some people liked Technical Pan). These are sold as traffic control films. Kodak, Iford, Fuji and others still sell this stuff and legislation has not completely made traffic films obsolete.
- A number of motion picture negative stocks (Kodak and others).
- A number of motion picture print stocks (KS performations, although intended for projectors, can be used in most of our cameras).
- A number of still B&W films from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford as well as exotics and, of course, we still have Agfa (supply shall last quite a few more years). FP4, Plus-X, T-max, Delta-100 etc...

Though communities such as APUG and Internet trading platforms information is more widely available and local market have expanded beyond their geo-politcal boundaries.


Not only is the selection enormous and the quality excellent BUT also its NEVER been cheaper! Old timers should remember just how expensive film was!

Sure some films and sizes have nearly vanished. 220 is more or less gone alongside Kodak Disc and a large assortment of sizes.. Sheet film is still widely available. Perhaps no longer films like TechPan but there are still quite a few scientific, micrographic and special purpose films available alongside the standards. The quality of today's sheet films is also high. Old timers should recall just how inconsistent some films used to be...

edz said:

Today's papers can't use the heavy metal salts (such as Cadmium) and so spoil quicker and are more costly to store.



The de-facto diversity of B&W film available today is enormous. Decades ago there were in any given market only a few films to choose from. The logistics of getting special films was costly and time consuming.

...

Click to expand...

Ed;

Cadmium had nothing to do with the stability of any photo material I knew of. It was used to adjust curve shape. Tetra-aza-indene (a German invention BTW from Agfa) was the second organic stabilzer used, and all stabilzers before or since have been organic, or organo-metallic.

I have a 1940 magazine listing page after page of films from Kodak, Agfa, Agfa-Ansco, Dufay and others in varying film sizes and also coated on glass. Kodachrome was available up to 8x10, and Kodacolor had just made its appearance. Then there were still the small manufacturers who were not listed in this type of magazine just as todays magazines have no ads or tests for many films or papers from smaller companies.

As for paper, I've mentioned before that Azo was available in grades 1 - 5, and on 19 surfaces. If that does not convince you, nothing will.

So, although quantity was lower due to smaller factories and coating speeds, variety was great.

Sorry, I cannot agree.

PE

AgX, I’m saying the same as the industry does, just reinterpreted in a constructive way. They say they cannot survive within the old paradigm. I say that they can survive if they change the paradigm. Today, the industry needs much more the photographers who shot by passion, selling nothing or close to nothing, than faith to film consecrated artists and professionals, who’s number is very small.

Film has to be seen today like food: you buy it (cheap if possible), you eat it (shoot), process it, and what you produce (guess what) might interest nobody. But you keep buying and using it because you have to satisfy your need, because it is self-rewarding. Don’t you do the same with music (CDs) or movies (DVDs)? – Vinyls vanished because they were only a recording support, which is not the case with film (as I detailed in my previous posts). These people do not spend money to make more money. They do not make a living of photography, they live it: doing it for themselves, and to preserve a form of art or hobby they value. Without them, film will die. And some of them are here, at APUG, and their number is rising, with oldies like me, but also with a new generation coming in. The ancient elitist paradigm is dying. Don’t, please, leave film dye with it!

Now, because I referenced to my credo/signature in my previous posts, and because I might change it someday, better to copy-paste it here:
“If B/W film were only a recording medium, digital would have overtaken, and it had vanished like vinyls. But B/W film is far more than that. If B/W film survived when color film came in, it will continue to live and grow side by side with digital color.”

Phenix;

Film is like a vinyl record or a DVD. It is a recording medium. Digital is also a 'recording medium' but fails to satisfy a lot of people due to its characteristics just as DVD recordings or CD recordings are unsatisfactory due to range. Digital images are also fugitive.

But, nonetheless, analog photography is vanishing just as 8 track tape, reel-to-reel tape and 78 rpm records did. Yes, you can still get them, but they are a great deal simpler than even the simplest film. And, don't forget the fact that some companies can make film and paper but do it poorly with soft film, film emulsion sliding off the support and uneven coatings (see other threads for these posts).

So, you may think that film is being made by a lot of companies in a lot of varieties, but I suggest you limit your thoughts of quality products to the big 3. Outside of that, you are looking at the technology of the 30s or earlier in some cases, and these cannot match modern methods.

As to changing the paradigm, Kodak has done that regressing the factory to something like how it appeared int the 30s in size to match the sales. And, they are turning a profit. Ilford and Kentmere consolidated. This was a good move and a paradigm shift. And it goes on. Where it ends, no one knows. Lets hope it does not end like reel to reel tape or 8 track casette.

PE

PE
you are trying to tell that Kodak has problem with photography materials manufacturing. I would rather say there is no market for that many manufacturers. And it is a core of the problem. Kodak rebeled against photography a long ago, we should not forget it.
It will be the best Kodak's donation to photography ever if they stop to make any kind of photographic material.
Ilford alone would be more than enough.
And yes I will pay $20 for 36 exp. It is $0.5 per frame, not so bad for one that knows to use it.

Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

Photo Engineer said:

Cadmium had nothing to do with the stability of any photo material I knew of.

Click to expand...

Organometallic stabilizers based around cadmium were used heavily by Agfa.

I have a 1940 magazine listing page after page of films from Kodak, Agfa, Agfa-Ansco, Dufay and others in varying film sizes and also coated on glass.

Click to expand...

The variety of glass plates has significantly declined. It was really only Germans and part of the scientific community that continued to use them until finally made more or less obsolete by computer based replacement technologies. They are, however, still available.
6x9 sheet film, for example, is widely considered obsolete with a big O. Yet I have a case of APX-100 from their last production. Ilford, I think, still makes it and then there are all the custom film places..

Kodachrome was available up to 8x10, and Kodacolor had just made its appearance. Then there were still the small manufacturers who were not listed in this type of magazine just as todays magazines have no ads or tests for many films or papers from smaller companies.

Click to expand...

I too have many historical books including the standard "Das große Agfa Labor-Handbuch" from 1938. It outlines all the great papers and films supposedly available. I have also post-war publications from East and West listing a wide assortment of materials most of which were impossible to get. In the 1960s and 1970s I got a wide assortment of Eastman stocks in Los Angeles but little Agfa. In, I think, 1973 I wanted to shoot using some Agfa B&W stocks. I hit a dead end. Agfa motion pictures division (whose office at the time was in Century City at the time) could not provide the materials. I could only get Eastman and Ilford (Ilford was still making cine materials) but even Ilford was non-trivial. For still photography I could get Agfa, Kodak, Ilford, OrWo and Efke (Adox) from Freestyle but if I wanted anything fresh I was down to Ilford and Kodak (I bought a lot from Freestyle and I knew them back when they were on Hollywood but they were a jobber for out-of-date or poorly stored materials and a lot had higher levels of fog). My books in the 1960s and 1970s showed all kinds of wonderful papers. I just could not purchase ANY of them. We lived in the idea: Well those European papers you can get in Europe. Visiting Europe.. Any better? No.. More Agfa. Less Kodak and no Seagull Oriental papers (the best paper that Freestyle used to sell). And those cool Gaevert papers? Not really available. And a lot of materials that are widely available had massive minimum order levels (Microfilm, Traffic film). Today I can purchase 30 meters of Microfilm and don't need to purchase a case (Agfa won't sell me less than a case or two but I don't have to purchase from Agfa).

As for paper, I've mentioned before that Azo was available in grades 1 - 5, and on 19 surfaces. If that does not convince you, nothing will.

Click to expand...

I liked graded papers. I was and am in the minority. Azo (Freestyle used to sell it too) was long considered obsolete. It really only made a big time comeback through Usenet and Michael Smith spread the gospel. And paper surfaces? I remember trying to order some of the surfaces from paper books.. Yes it was listed.. Could I get some? No. Could I order it.. No. Was told.. well its in the book just in case someone was to order a large enough amount to present a business case for making a run.. So.. What we these days call "vapour ware".

Obsolete? All kinds of stuff have always come and gone. I have lists of papers and films considered obsolete in the 1940s and 1950s. Photography is a technical area and has always been in flux.

So, although quantity was lower due to smaller factories and coating speeds, variety was great.

Click to expand...

By today's standard the best of Kodak 1940's was crap! Emulsions were not just inconsistent but flaky and all kinds of faults were taken as part of the media. Things really developed.

I would agree, however, that we have passed the apex. I don't think we'll in the future see films of the consistency of Agfa's APX-100. We're slowly rolling back down the hill. Demand, potential earnings and rising costs from energy, raw materials and constraints of environmental standards on the production of film and papers are working against us.

DanielOB said:

PE
you are trying to tell that Kodak has problem with photography materials manufacturing. I would rather say there is no market for that many manufacturers. And it is a core of the problem. Kodak rebeled against photography a long ago, we should not forget it.
It will be the best Kodak's donation to photography ever if they stop to make any kind of photographic material.
Ilford alone would be more than enough.
And yes I will pay $20 for 36 exp. It is $0.5 per frame, not so bad for one that knows to use it.

Daniel OB
www.Leica-R.com

Click to expand...

Daniel;

I am saying that all companies are having problems with the huge contraction (80 - 90%) in the analog market. And, I have pointed out how hard it will be for startup companies to get going from scratch.

PE

Ed;

I think you are making my point for me. Yes, it has been harder and harder to get products which is my point exactly, and just because I used Azo as an example, try to get any paper today in 5 grades of contrast and 19 surfaces. That was common 50+ years ago. My point is made by this example alone.

By today's standards 1940s film was quite good and quite bad depending on manufacturer or type. It is just like today. After all, if that old time film was so bad, why do so many want to see it reproduced today.

The information I have on Agfa formulas say that they used Cadmium based inorganic salts for contrast control and for image tone, not for keeping. You might be right in some obscure formulas, but they used thiazoles and azaindenes for that according to patents. Kodak never used a Cadmium organo metallic salt either. For keeping information see the Agfa patent by Birr in 1935 for stabilization and stabilzers.

PE

Product availability or Rons DOOM and GLOOM posts.
Please Ron do me a favour and go and make some pictures, you will help the proffitability of your belloved Kodac and will certainly feel better, maybe stop bitching on for a day or two give us all a rest.

Ron I am 55 years old, I will be long dead and buried before what is on the shelves now will be used. My grandkids will be able to use my kit after I am gone untill they die,either you need to go on an Ilford factory visit or get some anti depressants from your doctor, your vision of reality is not mine.

You are undoutedly a knowlageable chap but please lighten up, a newbie here reading your history and qualifications sees your doom posts and buggers off to buy a digi slr thinking there is no point me getting started Ron says it will be gone tommorow. As an ambassidor for film you are doing a great job for digital.

As film users we are all ambassidors, only last week at a camera club competition (45prints 6 anolouge) I dissabused the judge of the notion that film was no longer available. It is, and will remain so because there is enough of us useing it to make it worth someones while to make it.

Regards Paul.

Paul;

I have tried to point out some 'truths' from my years of experience in the film and paper emulsion making and coating field. They are not intended as doom and gloom any more than saying that someday a large meteor or comet may strike the earth. This is not doom and gloom, it is a fact. It might happen.

In point of fact, you have to take a middle ground in truth as much of the fact is altered by daily reconsiderations of the market itself. There was an uptic in analog sales last quarter, but I think it will be down this quarter in the US due to increasing prices and a weaker dollar. Is that doom and gloom? I think not. It is a reasoned asessment of known facts, but in this case I am on shakier ground as I am not a market analyst nor am I into futures, but someone familiar with the area can certainly make such a statement with authority and not be promulgating doom and gloom.

If I were such a proponent of doom and gloom, then why am I doing the emulsion making and coating work? I have been trying to strike an even balance showing both sides and the middle ground as well.

PE

There's no gloom, nor doom, in what PE is reporting. The marketplace drives everything. In some cases however, making a profit isn't enough. You have to make a LOT of profit to satisfy "greedy" shareholders. They want ROI just like the manufacturers.

My bet is on Fuji. They've vowed to be the last film guy standing.

Hahaha. I guess doom and gloom depends on your POV.

From an ex Kodak person, your comment is clearly doom and gloom.

PE

Fuji vs Kodak

Photo Engineer said:

Hahaha. I guess doom and gloom depends on your POV.

From an ex Kodak person, your comment is clearly doom and gloom.

PE

Click to expand...

I use mainly Fuji products and have for years, so my "bet" is also hope for what I'd like to continue. In the end, as long as I have film to shoot and cameras that will work, I'm happy enough. And if they go away there's digital, which I also shoot.

You can have lots of fun with film, from all makers. You can have fun with digital, from all makers. Fun counts.

I think the last company standing will be called Fuildak or something like it, after the last merger.

PE

First question: if one can sell a 20 roll brick of kodachrome 25 at $320 please tell me kodak couldn't make a profit off one run, if they charged mucho dinero. If people are willing to pay that much for frozen film than they would certainly pay that much to get their hands on a one off run of KC 25...

If dwaynes photo (as I've heard) runs 2500 rolls of film a day, most 36 exposure so average 4 feet a roll, it would appear that they would run through 10,000 feet of film a day. If a master roll is 5000 feet, it would appear they would run through 2 per day (seems...unlikely). Even if this is crazily far off I would bet there are enough consumers to run through a 5000 ft roll of kodachrome in a year. That's only 1000 rolls. I've shot 3 this year, that leaves 332 more photographers shooting 3 rolls and we'd have a master roll used up. Either my math grade is being inflated somehow or there's something I'm missing. Is a master roll only 5000 feet long?

A master roll is indeed 5000 feet long, but it is 42 inches wide. Ponder on that please.



PE

One thing I'm unable to understand - why does a roll have to be 5000 feet long? Seems inflexible, but I suppose it would have to do with costs that are fixed and remain the same regardless of roll length, therefore making the product unnecessarily expensive?
- Thomas

Master rolls of paper and film both come in approximately 5000 ft world wide from a variety of companies for some reason. I have never looked into it. At the present time, all production vessels are built to supply chemistry in batches to fit approximate master roll length and all equipment is built to accomodate that length.

PE

dear zeus-that could last until the end of time

tiberiustibz said:

Even if this is crazily far off I would bet there are enough consumers to run through a 5000 ft roll of kodachrome in a year. That's only 1000 rolls.

Click to expand...

5000 * 12 * 42/80 = 31,500 rolls. So, yeah, 1000 is "crazily off."

Ed

Ed;

In the words of Desi Arnaz, "'splain". Your equation uses 42/80? I guess I don't follow. Anyhow, the coated web is 40" due to the waste of 1" at each side of the web. But I get 5000 * 12 /60 = number of 20 exposure roll lengths x ~40 = number of 35mm rolls (it assumes 1" for a 35mm roll, but this is too narrow). This is about 40,000 rolls so we are close.

Now, the bottom line is this, the machine must be threaded with leader before starting (5000 ft) and threaded with leader after coating (5000 ft), so if we assume 1 roll, it uses 3 master rolls to set up the machine and shut it down. Pretty expensive, no?

Lets take it further, and consider that right now, in spite of the everything, about 1 - 3 master rolls supplies the entire world for one year with all of its Kodachrome needs. And, that job may take months to pull together, but is completed in less than one day.

PE