TIRED OF BW FILM PRICE 'EXCUSES'

[lxdude]

I don't have any prices from 1975, but I have a Modern Photography, November 1982. B+H was selling PX and TX, 135-36, for $2.19. The Consumer Price Index puts that at equivalent to $5.13 today.

 

[CGW]

I don't have any prices from 1975, but I have a Modern Photography, November 1982. B+H was selling PX and TX, 135-36, for $2.19. The Consumer Price Index puts that at equivalent to $5.13 today.

This might help sort things out in the factual moshpit:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[tomalophicon]

What, how did this thread get back on topic?

 

[Aristophanes]

Film is of higher quality today with less variance between samples and consistency within. That's a factor as well. Thank digital technology in assisting production techniques to keep the costs down even as sales fall off a cliff.

Every digital snap I take amortizes the chattel camera cost cheaper per photo, but with film every shot accumulates cost in development, prints, and, of course, the need for more film. Film cannot win and is becoming scarce resulting in higher prices despite the long-term sunk costs having been paid back decades ago. The obliteration of film photography from the mass market puts the capital situation of the industry in a negative flow position reversing the sunk cost advantages as the plain vanilla operational costs are now the problem: electrical bills, silver prices, petrochemical supply, and so on. There is no economy-of-scale anymore. Film photography is edging closer to a made-to-order model where the real crisis lies in that even that may not work as the number of new film cameras in production is extremely limited.

There is no longer any qualitative argument between film and digital; it is economic now. For a very brief time there was economic and qualitative parity, but we blinked and it was gone. If we price the cost per image of digital vs. film in its most economically efficient days, I bet a 1970 dollar that digital images, as a substitute technology, are well below the cost per image film ever was.

In fact, I bet a 1980 dollar that a digital image now is less expensive per image relative to real wages ever. It has never been easier and less expensive to acquire a camera and share images (video too).

As a result we are swamped with more lousy digital photos even more than we were swamped with lousy film photos.

But we are culturally poorer if we lose the interesting alchemy, experimentation, and alternative process of film as an imaging medium all the way from large format to point-and-shoot goofiness. Film has characteristics (I won't use the term 'qualities' as that is too subjective) and history and techniques that are its own. Film costs will only plateau when the demand side of the equation factors those assets into the production side and some sort of sales equilibrium is reached for sustainability. One cannot price the future with nostalgia.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What, how did this thread get back on topic?

Let's keep it that way.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Every digital snap I take amortizes the chattel camera cost cheaper per photo, but with film every shot accumulates cost in development, prints, and, of course, the need for more film. Film cannot win and is becoming scarce resulting in higher prices despite the long-term sunk costs having been paid back decades ago. The obliteration of film photography from the mass market puts the capital situation of the industry in a negative flow position reversing the sunk cost advantages as the plain vanilla operational costs are now the problem: electrical bills, silver prices, petrochemical supply, and so on. There is no economy-of-scale anymore. Film photography is edging closer to a made-to-order model where the real crisis lies in that even that may not work as the number of new film cameras in production is extremely limited.

Actually not. A 60 Megapixel back which is not even full frame for a Hasselblad costs around $50,000US. Then I would have to buy a new computer, RAID disk set up and software like Photo$hop. Or I can put a negative in my crappy scanner at 4,000 dpi and get a 320 Megapixel full frame digital photograph. The mathematical model is invalid. More so for large format. Oh yes, I don't need no stinking batteries!

 

[Aristophanes]

Actually not. A 60 Megapixel back which is not even full frame for a Hasselblad costs around $50,000US. Then I would have to buy a new computer, RAID disk set up and software like Photo$hop. Or I can put a negative in my crappy scanner at 4,000 dpi and get a 320 Megapixel full frame digital photograph. The mathematical model is invalid. More so for large format. Oh yes, I don't need no stinking batteries!

Actually yes. That's why there are far more photos taken with digital than ever with film. That's why this is not about quality. Or are you comparing the Kodak 126 outputs with flashbulbs to a digital Hasselblad? That's a straw man tactic stated for the last decade to no avail, likely hastening film's market demise.

And the majority of the world does not invest in PS or even PC's (not even camera-mad Japan). So that's another diversion. By far the vast majority of shooters let the digital processor in the camera rely on JPEG and share on the internet now. For many developing nations, where people could never afford to own a film camera, the digital camera (especially through phones) is ubiquitous. The film industry was never sustained by darkroom junkies just like the digicam industry is not sustained by Adobe.

By definition, if film is completely obliterated as a relic of the Industrial Revolution (an entirely plausible scenario, even for black and white), then the mathematical model of the market has triumphed completely through the allocation of scarce resources. At that point it is the only model that counts. Film is anecdote, with all intended irony. Those who frame the argument as you have are yelling into the wind because the facts on the ground say otherwise as people are voting against this megapixel/scanner/film density comparison with their dollars. Most people don't pixel peep and neither did they have a loupe.

If film is to persist as a technology, it will have to compete for economic space through different metrics using different arguments. Economically, it has completely and decisively lost the quality argument to the point no one listens when capital is invested. Digital is "good enough", and for many, vastly superior for its other qualities. Falling into the megapixel comparison is arguing angels on pinheads, playing right to digital's strengths; a constantly evolving, accessible, technologically exciting medium. Digital cameras circle distant planets, watch us through community surveillance videos, are in our baby monitors, in our phones, attached to skateboard helmets, and in our cars. Digital has made photography more accessible and substantially less expensive than ever. More people can take more photos for less than a fraction of a cent each. That's a triumph all photographers should celebrate.

The downside for film, the originator technology, is hardly anyone is making cameras in enough volume at the right prices to sustain a film manufacturing industry. Film and cameras have 100% disappeared from supermarket and drugstore shelves where I live. Even the dedicated camera store only stocks film on special order and no film camera models. The art school may no be able to keep their darkroom because students are having trouble sourcing reliable, affordable film cameras. Film is fascinating and viable for reasons different than comparing it to digital using the same metrics.

Film technology only exists if it is economically viable. Right now—back to the OP—it is not.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Disposable cameras are available at supermarkets all over the US. My wife loves them and just bought a 6 pack for casual use. She hates digital! As for the disposables, they are keeping film alive in many places. Sales are brisk.

PE

 

[Smudger]

The Blackbird Fly, Lomography, and ,of course the Holga . Freestyle reports sales "In the hundreds of thousands annually in the US alone".
All needing feeding..

 

[Diapositivo]

[...]
Every digital snap I take amortizes the chattel camera cost cheaper per photo, but with film every shot accumulates cost in development, prints, and, of course, the need for more film. Film cannot win and is becoming scarce resulting in higher prices despite the long-term sunk costs having been paid back decades ago.
[...]

I agree partially, and I agree that this is the perceived reason. But, in reality, when people buy a €500,00 camera which, let's say, is going to last 6 years before replacing, that means more than €80 per year. Add to this spare batteries, flash memory cards, external hard-drive for backup, and you see that for the normal user it's around €100 per year. This normal user (not talking about shutterbugs) uses his camera for family gatherings (Christmas, birthdays, and such) and holidays. In a film world, he would not be taking more than 15 or 20 rolls per year (possibly much less, on average). Now with his DSLR he takes more pictures, and edits later, only to satisfy needs that were satisfied by those 15-20 rolls. He will look at the pictures in his monitor, but he will have some of them printed as well, which again adds to the annual cost.

The final cost per year is, for this kind of normal user, quite comparable to film. I suppose most of DSLR sales are to this kind of normal "family" photographers. If that is true, either they are "irrational" purchasers (they perceive an economy where there isn't one) or they prefer digital for other reasons (immediate check of results, easy duplication).

I think both motivations are somehow present in the market. Many people are lured by the theoretical low cost per image, but they actually don't use the camera that much after having bought it.

In response to your affirmation that film "cannot win", I think that in fact film can still position itself as a cost-effective way to take pictures for most casual, family users. And it certainly is competitive for shutterbugs and maniacs like us, for other reasons.

(Film is here to stay).

 

[David Lyga]

First, Aristophanes has the wisdom of ancient Greece in that he gets to the actual heart of the matter, without digression, without hyperbole.

My original rant was really somewhat formulated to thwart, or at least mitigate, the dire truth: Film, traditional BW film, is used by few in present society. I wanted credence, but did not succeed, in trying to 'justify' false economies of scale when there simply are none for this product. I thought that there might be a 'way out' but, economically, there is not. The free market has spoken.

Theoretically, digital is clearly better than film. You can say 'no' but the last bugs to be ironed out will force naysayers to change their collective minds. I do not enjoy saying this as film is in my blood. I own no digital camera. But 'theoretically' is not necessarily the real world, just like a 'truism' is not necessarily 'true'. The 'other stuff' that is required for top flight digital is daunting at best. And the in depth 'know how' tacks onto this daunting dilemma. This is just like the fact that I love classical music but do not own CDs. I have, in storage about 6000 LPs that supply me with all the music I could possibly desire (along with occasional surface noise). Why? Because, over the years at thrift stores I bought these records, mostly pristine, for an average of about 25 to 50 cents each. In Philadelphia, few like classical music and the revered Philadelphia Orchestra filed recently for bankruptcy (though few think it will truly die). There, old technology works best for David Lyga. But I am aware of the decided advantages of newer technology. I have multiple turntables that I have retooled to have extremely light ceramic cartridges. I would go broke buying into the more advanced technology in three seconds.

PE makes a valid point (as always) but I do need to remind him that disposable cameras buoying the film base are nothing compared to the vast footage that Hollywood uses. When THEY turn to digital then film might REALLY become a dear, costly niche product. (And, yes, Diapositivo, that includes Cine-Citta in Roma.)

By the way, the 63 cent price was standard for that time in the mid 70s. Some of you might not remember that there was a terrific bout of double-digit (guiding, temporarily, to $51 / troy ounce silver) inflation in the late 70s leading to the $2.19 price quoted previously on this forum for B&H in 1982. But the information and feedback is both justified and informative. I might not agree with everything said but its diversity is indicative of the various facets underlying a seemingly simple query. - David Lyga

 

[paul ron]

The cost of film is still relatively cheap considering potentially what your photos can be worth as finsihed product.

Shooting digital has made lots of photographers lazy, banging off hundreds of frames to get one good one.

If you are balking about the cost of film, perhaps the cost of gas will keep you from traveling to jobs?

Maybe you should take up oil painting?... oh but the price of paint has sky rocketed there too.

It's the cost of art; either you sharpen your skills or pay for the waste.

.

 

[David Lyga]

I take SEPTA (public transport). I have no car. I have no 'gasoline' or 'petrol' factors to be concerned with.

But, Paul, the 'lazy' factor is very valid. The difficulty of making film exposures mean something, rather than utilizing a continuation of our 'throw away' society, brings up points worth thinking about. Few, outside this board, will. - David Lyga.

 

[Aristophanes]

I agree partially, and I agree that this is the perceived reason. But, in reality, when people buy a €500,00 camera which, let's say, is going to last 6 years before replacing, that means more than €80 per year. Add to this spare batteries, flash memory cards, external hard-drive for backup, and you see that for the normal user it's around €100 per year. This normal user (not talking about shutterbugs) uses his camera for family gatherings (Christmas, birthdays, and such) and holidays. In a film world, he would not be taking more than 15 or 20 rolls per year (possibly much less, on average). Now with his DSLR he takes more pictures, and edits later, only to satisfy needs that were satisfied by those 15-20 rolls. He will look at the pictures in his monitor, but he will have some of them printed as well, which again adds to the annual cost.

The final cost per year is, for this kind of normal user, quite comparable to film. I suppose most of DSLR sales are to this kind of normal "family" photographers. If that is true, either they are "irrational" purchasers (they perceive an economy where there isn't one) or they prefer digital for other reasons (immediate check of results, easy duplication).

I think both motivations are somehow present in the market. Many people are lured by the theoretical low cost per image, but they actually don't use the camera that much after having bought it.

In response to your affirmation that film "cannot win", I think that in fact film can still position itself as a cost-effective way to take pictures for most casual, family users. And it certainly is competitive for shutterbugs and maniacs like us, for other reasons.

(Film is here to stay).

135 film + processing where I live in the developed world (Canada) in a 2 million person economic catchment area is approaching $29+ tax per 36 exp. roll. Add another $5 for scans at least. This cost can only rise as scarcity takes over.

All drugstore chains and supermarkets in this area no longer have mini-labs, just dry print systems, some outsourced. Only a very minimal amount of film is stocked and some disposables, with no prime retail presence. I have spoken with some agents here and they expect to process no film locally in 3 years even at the distribution level. Across Canada film development through labs will almost exclusively be mail order at CAN$12+ per roll with prints and scans extra, plus postage. Larger urban areas will cling to mini-labs on inertia sales and entrenched communities, but overall the loss is looming and total.

The average snapshooter can buy a $75 P&S digicam and repeatedly try and get the shot by verifying through the rear LCD. There is no risk that he or she did not get the shot both having wasted the $1/frame and the moment. Even dry printing is on the decline as free web services replace viewing patterns. If the camera itself is the mini-lab and the internet (already paid for with a vast array of other functional uses) is the medium, then the added step of processing, printing, and/or scanning is an uneconomic, additional burden making film non-competitive. If you amortize the digital cost vs. film, it is no contest. The digital production system drives costs down to the point where cameras are in our phones, transferable to other phones with no processing intermediary. Film is not cost-effective against that model at all because it never had that functionality.

And as for laziness, I see no difference between digital over-exuberance and shoeboxes. Over-production by the end-user was a goal of Fuji and Kodak as it stimulated sales both for film and mini-labs.

Economically, functionally, and statistically film has no presence in the market here for casual shooters. I do think it is not a stretch to extrapolate for worldwide analogy because film was always a fascinating, early entry into global economics with Kodak in particular being one of the most recognized brands anywhere. Therefore, if film cannot compete in a developed world catchment area, it simply does not compete anywhere. It's disappearance is already nearly total in in the mindshare of the economic and cultural marketplace regardless. There are pretty much no ads nor mainstream discussion of film cameras and technology.

As an economist I have observed other industries face similar fateful dynamics. One that comes to mind is sewing patterns. The scanner, the internet, the PDF, and loose copyright ethics have almost obliterated that industry, which once thrived in an economic zone allowing those of limited means or willing to provide their own sweat equity towards the production of textile products, especially clothing (akin to a darkroom). In this way the self-motivated or those of economic need were able to produce a terrific and contemporary final product often superior to that of a sweatshop, with an element of handicraft and emotional pride. The ability to sew is far more teachable and accessible than the ability to design allowing the pattern industry to leverage the few who can design, applying their unique skills to the masses. The whole lack of ROI for new patterns due to copying has effaced the ability to create new patterns for sale even though the original capital for production and distribution is long since amortized. As a result, the self-help segment of the textiles industry is in steep decline, even as millions of people could benefit from this alternate means of production. The analogy with the film industry is apt, as film also relies on the industrial production of a material: textiles and sewing machines vs. substrate/emulsion and cameras.

The problem for film is that it is unique to photography (for the most part) whereas textiles are a broad necessity and will be produced regardless of how many sewing machines and patterns are in the home economic pipeline. And film depends on cameras whose assembly lines are statistically non-existent. Once the old stock of film cameras succumbs to entropy (watch eBay and Flickr for the data curve to decline), you will soon see film demand rocket downwards even faster than the last 10 years towards complete capitulation, even for specialists like Ilford. This is not inevitable but avoidance will rely on the creation of a different market for film photography, certainly not as a technical and economic competitor to digital photography. The "cost equivalent" argument is lost and the "better than" argument as well. Different arguments, need to be made and placed at the forefront to make the business case. I "see" enough demand, but not the path to leverage it economically. one problem is I keep getting drawn in to the comparative rehashing with digital; another waste of scarce resources. Hah!

 

[michaelbsc]

I have maintained for a long time that the only viable future for silver imagery is in the arts and crafts world.

 

[Diapositivo]

Seems that in Canada the deterioration of the analogue market is beyond the point of no return. Here in Italy the situation is totally different.

Typical development only with index is €2.5 per roll.
Then there is around €5.00 for a CD with scans, or €0.20 each for bulk prints 10x15 cm. "Custom prints" go at 0.50 each for 10x15.

(first thread I found)
Dead Link Removed

This online shop (first laboratory I found with a search engine) for €5.90 gives you both develop and scanning as TIFF/16bit per channel/4000ppi.
http://www.photoworld.it/sviluppo_stampa_rullini/stampa_e_sviluppo_fotografie_analogico.asp

At this scanning quality 35mm is superior to most digital cameras around as far as resolution is concerned, and superior to any digital camera around as far as overall quality (highlights behaviour, dynamic range) is concerned. (Analogue is quite a formidable competitor to digital, technically, I tell you I use both technologies for stock purposes and see the differences).

A professional laboratory develops and frames slides for €6.00 a roll, professional quality that is.

If I lived in Canada, with that level of prices, I would not be optimist myself. But the business is operable at much lower prices. There's a commercial opportunity in Canada, for the daring!

Actually if I were Canadian I would begin offering developing services on places like eBay. People could buy film bulk abroad, and develop it bulk through an underground cottage industry.

 

[CGW]

135 film + processing where I live in the developed world (Canada) in a 2 million person economic catchment area is approaching $29+ tax per 36 exp. roll. Add another $5 for scans at least. This cost can only rise as scarcity takes over.

All drugstore chains and supermarkets in this area no longer have mini-labs, just dry print systems, some outsourced. Only a very minimal amount of film is stocked and some disposables, with no prime retail presence. I have spoken with some agents here and they expect to process no film locally in 3 years even at the distribution level. Across Canada film development through labs will almost exclusively be mail order at CAN$12+ per roll with prints and scans extra, plus postage. Larger urban areas will cling to mini-labs on inertia sales and entrenched communities, but overall the loss is looming and total.

The average snapshooter can buy a $75 P&S digicam and repeatedly try and get the shot by verifying through the rear LCD. There is no risk that he or she did not get the shot both having wasted the $1/frame and the moment. Even dry printing is on the decline as free web services replace viewing patterns. If the camera itself is the mini-lab and the internet (already paid for with a vast array of other functional uses) is the medium, then the added step of processing, printing, and/or scanning is an uneconomic, additional burden making film non-competitive. If you amortize the digital cost vs. film, it is no contest. The digital production system drives costs down to the point where cameras are in our phones, transferable to other phones with no processing intermediary. Film is not cost-effective against that model at all because it never had that functionality.

And as for laziness, I see no difference between digital over-exuberance and shoeboxes. Over-production by the end-user was a goal of Fuji and Kodak as it stimulated sales both for film and mini-labs.

Economically, functionally, and statistically film has no presence in the market here for casual shooters. I do think it is not a stretch to extrapolate for worldwide analogy because film was always a fascinating, early entry into global economics with Kodak in particular being one of the most recognized brands anywhere. Therefore, if film cannot compete in a developed world catchment area, it simply does not compete anywhere. It's disappearance is already nearly total in in the mindshare of the economic and cultural marketplace regardless. There are pretty much no ads nor mainstream discussion of film cameras and technology.

As an economist I have observed other industries face similar fateful dynamics. One that comes to mind is sewing patterns. The scanner, the internet, the PDF, and loose copyright ethics have almost obliterated that industry, which once thrived in an economic zone allowing those of limited means or willing to provide their own sweat equity towards the production of textile products, especially clothing (akin to a darkroom). In this way the self-motivated or those of economic need were able to produce a terrific and contemporary final product often superior to that of a sweatshop, with an element of handicraft and emotional pride. The ability to sew is far more teachable and accessible than the ability to design allowing the pattern industry to leverage the few who can design, applying their unique skills to the masses. The whole lack of ROI for new patterns due to copying has effaced the ability to create new patterns for sale even though the original capital for production and distribution is long since amortized. As a result, the self-help segment of the textiles industry is in steep decline, even as millions of people could benefit from this alternate means of production. The analogy with the film industry is apt, as film also relies on the industrial production of a material: textiles and sewing machines vs. substrate/emulsion and cameras.

The problem for film is that it is unique to photography (for the most part) whereas textiles are a broad necessity and will be produced regardless of how many sewing machines and patterns are in the home economic pipeline. And film depends on cameras whose assembly lines are statistically non-existent. Once the old stock of film cameras succumbs to entropy (watch eBay and Flickr for the data curve to decline), you will soon see film demand rocket downwards even faster than the last 10 years towards complete capitulation, even for specialists like Ilford. This is not inevitable but avoidance will rely on the creation of a different market for film photography, certainly not as a technical and economic competitor to digital photography. The "cost equivalent" argument is lost and the "better than" argument as well. Different arguments, need to be made and placed at the forefront to make the business case. I "see" enough demand, but not the path to leverage it economically. one problem is I keep getting drawn in to the comparative rehashing with digital; another waste of scarce resources. Hah!

Much of this is very old news in 2011, though some of it overstates the decline for Canada, at least as far as the GTA goes. Low-end process/print service is still available thru the Loblaws chain at around $5.99 for 24 on 5 day service--quality varies with volume. Some stores are still moving a surprising amount of film thru their Fuji Frontiers. Several will also process C-41 120 cheaply. E6 service is the main casualty. Pro lab service is thinner but still available at less than stroke-inducing prices. Film might not be available next to the cough drops at the supermarket check-out any longer but it's not impossible to find. I have to make a bit more effort to use a pro lab but pro labs still exist and aren't circling the drain--yet.

Entry level p&s shooters aren't really a profit center for anyone. "Serious" amateur digital shooters--as before--dump a pile on whatever PopPhoto advertises and succumb to the usual aspirational pitches.

All I see here is a firm grasp of the obvious.

 

[Aristophanes]

I have maintained for a long time that the only viable future for silver imagery is in the arts and crafts world.

Possibly. I tend to agree, but even then the ability to produce some of the components requires industrial-scale mass production.

There is a lot of interest in this topic among economists and culture watchers. Film photography has the largest scope of vernacular artistic expression recorded outside of music and basic literacy. I know of no economist who thinks film can survive as a common practice in cultural expression (and not in Italy either); it will become a niche subset of photography in general. The capital investment is in reverse, most evident in camera production, and film suppliers will struggle to meet operational overhead. The loss of local processing is looming worldwide, and the efficiencies of mail-order processing are viable, but only if there are other structural changes elsewhere in the product cycle.

What really has to happen is a mindset change (Lomography gets that part mostly correct) moving away from film as a competitive alternative to digital, but as a completely different process with its own unique footprint; esoteric and costly, but with elements of alchemy, nostalgia, oddity, experiment, discipline, and handicraft, all idiosyncratic. Those are all elements lacking in digital photography. The effort has to be on a lager scale than "cottage industry" because substrate and emulsions, and handheld camera production require industrial scale production. Horseshoes still need an iron mine and foundry.

Tens of millions of consumers may not be necessary, but a million might if the products are compelling and the costs kept within reason. Ironically, digital will help people learn to take photos with more accuracy, leading to less waste, providing a stepping stone to experimentation with the medium, away from the computer screen.

The good thing is there's interest. It is talked about.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have two points here:

1. David I agree about motion picture. My comment should read "consumer imaging is supported in large part by disposable cameras" and I should add that MP consumption of film is way down and that is what has hurt EK.

2. Color printing is being done more from these disposable cameras than from any other original image source.

And possibly a third point is that a mixed work flow (film original - digital print) makes sense in that it removes the digital image backup problem and it frees disk space while giving the best of both worlds.

PE

 

[David Lyga]

Says Aristophanes: "with its own unique footprint; esoteric and costly, but with elements of alchemy, nostalgia, oddity, experiment, discipline, and handicraft, all idiosyncratic"

Is that tangible enough to maintain a permanent 'interest value' and economically feasible enough to last? The words sound romantic, poetic and desirable but that is not all that is needed to cement its legitimacy.

Or is it? I must confess that for me the thrill of those very words make me succumb to its (questionable?) worth and real seduction. I get mentally excited when I hold a piece of film. I understand it and its electrons waiting for a solar imprint. It does seem magical to me and, if I understand correctly, modern science STILL is not absolutely sure just what really happens when the photon stikes the emulsion. I cannot 'see' (ie, perceive) the workings of digital that way because digital contains no 'alchemy'. Are all my cameras going to be entirely worthless? Is this like the horse and buggy 100 years ago, with the buggy and horse lasting till now only to carry tourists around Independence Hall (and other niche venues)? I speak only for myself: For me the film and paper and chemicals are personal. And, intrinsically, that admission is crazy and technically stupid. Why do I feel suddenly 'secure' when I score a deal on outdated paper and feel absolutely invulnerable when I test said paper and find out that the 'coin area' remains pure white after the Dektol? Is life made up of more than technical perfection and scientific method?

ROI (return on investment) presents a dichotomy: necessary (ONLY that, they will tell you in the college classroom) but also fatuous at times, when one factors into this continuum the subliminal underpinnings supporting the legitimacy of life itself. Some of life's legitimacy HAS to be solely poetic. Otherwise we would surely starve. - David Lyga

 

[MattKing]

I just dropped a 24 exposure roll of Kodak Gold C41 film at my local Shoppers Drug Mart. They still have a ~ 1 hour photo service - C41 Develop, RA-4 or equivalent Prints, Scans on Disk: $6.99 for a 24 exposure roll. They were fairly busy today, so it will be tomorrow before I can pick them up.

Their quality is okay, although it would be nice if the scans were a bit better.

I expect one of the reasons that the service is still there is that there are a fair number of retirees in the area.

 

[michaelbsc]

Some of life's legitimacy HAS to be solely poetic. Otherwise we would surely starve. - David Lyga

+1

But I still plan to learn to make my own emulsions.

 

[ntenny]

Are all my cameras going to be entirely worthless? Is this like the horse and buggy 100 years ago, with the buggy and horse lasting till now only to carry tourists around Independence Hall (and other niche venues)?

That's not actually the case, and I think it may be relevant to the film context that it isn't.

Contrary to what the stock metaphor assumes, you can still buy buggy whips. (Googling for "carriage whip" works better to find manufacturers.) You can still buy carriages, you can still get street-legal licenses and drive them down the public road, you can still find a professional who will help you and your horse learn to operate them, you can still compete on presentation and technical form in a substantial pool of enthusiasts of the carriage. (I actually own a carriage, as it happens, not for showing but for keeping the pony in shape and taking enjoyable rides up and down our little dead-end canyon.)

A lot of equestrian pursuits are somewhere between "cottage industry" and "gigantic commercial megalith", which is to say, pretty much at the scale that silver photography seems like it has to settle in. (It can't easily shrink to "cottage" size because of the economics of coating.) They're tough areas to make a living in, but people do make a go of it, as evinced by the persistence at a small scale of dozens of brand names that you've never heard if you're not hanging around horses.

I suspect a lot of products in the loosely defined "arts and crafts" world fall at this same scale, which kind of supports the view that that world may be the future home of film. I have a pretty easy time seeing how b&w can hold together like that---we'll probably all have to develop our own---but color is a little more of a question mark, and slides...well, shoot ye E-6 while ye may, I guess.

-NT

 

[pbromaghin]

Says Aristophanes: "with its own unique footprint; esoteric and costly, but with elements of alchemy, nostalgia, oddity, experiment, discipline, and handicraft, all idiosyncratic"

Can I use that?

Is this like the horse and buggy 100 years ago, with the buggy and horse lasting till now only to carry tourists around Independence Hall (and other niche venues)?

I see it much like horses. Nobody uses horse and buggy for travelling any more, but here in Colorado EVERYBODY wants a horse. People spend enormous amounts of money to get those few acres for a barn, a paddock and a small pasture. Then they spend so much of their non-work time maintaining it that the don't get the chance to ride and have to hire a pro to come and exercise the horses while they are at work. If they can't get the horse property then they pay through the nose for boarding in the country and drive for hours back and forth from the city. You will see horse trailers and 1-ton pickups with dual wheel rear ends for pulling them parked on suburban residential streets.

Film people are those people on a much smaller dollar scale. We will support an industry that provides our tools as those people support the trailer and horse tack industry.

I speak only for myself: For me the film and paper and chemicals are personal. And, intrinsically, that admission is crazy and technically stupid.

<snip>

Some of life's legitimacy HAS to be solely poetic. Otherwise we would surely starve. - David Lyga

That passion is what will keep it going, anachronistic or not.

 

[Monito]

[...]

A number of good points and insight, especially the bit about sewing patterns.

135 film + processing where I live in the developed world (Canada) in a 2 million person economic catchment area is approaching $29+ tax per 36 exp. roll. Add another $5 for scans at least. This cost can only rise as scarcity takes over.

That's colour film you are costing out there, undoubtedly. It's important to differentiate between B&W and colour with respect to the state of the film industry. Once the last holdouts of the ordinary ("non-photographer") members of the public go digital or stop entirely for the obvious reason, then there will much less market for colour film than B&W film. By that time, even the third world will effectively be entirely digital. Some hobbyists and fine artists and advanced amateurs will always want to shoot film, but the barriers against colour film (cost, environmental toxins, complexity of home processing and printing) will be intense.

Thus I think the colour film market will collapse and only a couple if any films will be available.

However, the B&W market will have a solid core of the afore-mentioned fine artists and advanced amateurs, enough to sustain (world-wide) a variety of emulsions, a variety of ISOs, and a variety of papers, along with some decent chemistry. Perhaps even about the same variety available now, as Indian and Chinese manufacturers come on strong and a risen upper-middle class buys artisinal hobbies and fine arts.