Why is it that despite hype about "film revival," fewer color films are available?

[AgX]

Can you expand on this? I am not fully up to date on industry news (all I know is Harman purchased Ilford).

Harman did not purchase Ilford. After the Insolvency of Ilford the british part of the company was bought up by several former managers, who formed Harman by this.

The Harman plant is located on ground to be restructured.

 

[brent8927]

Ilford does not own the land that their factory and offices sits on. They lease it and it expires in 7 years. By not owning their land, Ilford does not control their own destiny. The owner does and can sell it out from under Ilford. Hopefully that does not happen.

Harman did not purchase Ilford. After the Insolvency of Ilford the british part of the company was bought up by several former managers, who formed Harman by this.

The Harman plant is located on ground to be restructured.

I was not aware of this. I hope Ilford continues to make film--it would be a huge loss if they had to leave the market.

 

[ic-racer]

I doubt if archival matters to many, but in any case, is a digital print archival? Is a digital file archival?

You need to start a new thread with those off topic remarks.

 

[E. von Hoegh]

.

Digital is an artificial facsimile that can never truly match the ascetic quality of film!

"Ascetic". That's funny!
So sorry to burst your bubble, but from what I can see digital color has it over film with the exception of projected transparencies.

 

[RPC]

You need to start a new thread with those off topic remarks.

I assumed you were comparing with digital but now I'm guessing b&w analog? Anyway the first part of my comment is still appropriate.

 

[Arcadia4]

Ilford does not own the land that their factory and offices sits on. They lease it and it expires in 7 years. By not owning their land, Ilford does not control their own destiny. The owner does and can sell it out from under Ilford. Hopefully that does not happen.

To finance the management buy out (MBO) in 2005 Ilford UK management sold the land to a private company (Isola Investments Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Perviaz Naviede Family Trust - http://www.whoarewe.com/about-the-pervaiz-naviede-family-trust/). Isola tried to get planning on the site for residential development in 2014, whilst retaining a reduced 'right sized' campus for Ilford (c 20% of the 40 acre site). The local authority refused consent and Isola/agents also lost an appeal to the UK government planning inspectorate, determined in 2016 , mainly because the land at Mobberley is in the Manchester Airport flight path and the noise levels are such that it is considered unsuited to new residential development under current rules (despite being surrounded on 2 sides by existing dwellings). Furthermore in the UK a business owner generally has the right to renewal of their lease (unless they expressly gave up that right at the start of the tenanacy) and can apply to the courts for a new lease if neccessary. Given all plans have thus far accomodated Ilford it seems unlikely that their lease would not be renewed, and this is no doubt something that Pemberstone Ventures ltd (a private investment company) considered when they acquired Harman Technology (the MBO) in 2015. On the positive front Pemberstone didn't buy the business for the land, the fate of many historic companies that are cash poor but sit on land with high residential values. Hopefully that provides some comfort that Ilford will still be around for some time to come providing we keep buying their film and paper of course. Anyway back to colour film...unfortunately not something we can rely on ilford for...

 

[alanrockwood]

Harman did not purchase Ilford. After the Insolvency of Ilford the british part of the company was bought up by several former managers, who formed Harman by this.

The Harman plant is located on ground to be restructured.

As I recall, wasn't this the main reason that we lost Forte film, real estate development on the manufacturer's former site?

 

[RattyMouse]

To finance the management buy out (MBO) in 2005 Ilford UK management sold the land to a private company (Isola Investments Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Perviaz Naviede Family Trust - http://www.whoarewe.com/about-the-pervaiz-naviede-family-trust/). Isola tried to get planning on the site for residential development in 2014, whilst retaining a reduced 'right sized' campus for Ilford (c 20% of the 40 acre site). The local authority refused consent and Isola/agents also lost an appeal to the UK government planning inspectorate, determined in 2016 , mainly because the land at Mobberley is in the Manchester Airport flight path and the noise levels are such that it is considered unsuited to new residential development under current rules (despite being surrounded on 2 sides by existing dwellings). Furthermore in the UK a business owner generally has the right to renewal of their lease (unless they expressly gave up that right at the start of the tenanacy) and can apply to the courts for a new lease if neccessary. Given all plans have thus far accomodated Ilford it seems unlikely that their lease would not be renewed, and this is no doubt something that Pemberstone Ventures ltd (a private investment company) considered when they acquired Harman Technology (the MBO) in 2015. On the positive front Pemberstone didn't buy the business for the land, the fate of many historic companies that are cash poor but sit on land with high residential values. Hopefully that provides some comfort that Ilford will still be around for some time to come providing we keep buying their film and paper of course. Anyway back to colour film...unfortunately not something we can rely on ilford for...

Very comforting indeed. Thank you very much for that summary. And welcome to Phototrio!

 

[Joel_L]

OK, I'm a little late to this party and just digested this thread all at once ( maybe started skimming about half way through ). I do both digital and film I will shoot film for as long as it's available. My preference is chromes, B&W, then color neg. Though Fall and Winter, B&W is my goto. As far as what's better, I don't think I really care, each has it's place. When it comes to film, I just like the process better than the digital work flow. I process my own film, E-6, C41, and B&W and enjoy doing it. I used to do wet prints but no longer have a proper darkroom, so I scan, breaks the digital vs film aspect for me, but I'm OK with the hybrid approach. I also shoot 35mm and MF. for me nothing pops more than looking at a good MF chrome on a light table. I've not seen a digital anything that give me that same pop and depth. What I like about digital is it's cheap to experiment with. There's enough storage in my camera for over 1000 raw images. I don't worry about keeping my finger on the shutter button trying to get that one in a 100+ shot, BIF, Moose......, or trying different perspectives on a static image, buildings, landscapes.... Right or wrong, I find myself thinking more about my shots with film, where as with digital, I try more things.

Bottom line, do what you enjoy. I have been away from both mediums for a while but have recent;y started getting back into both.

 

[NJH]

It's funny that 10 pages in the first 3 replies to the OP nailed the answers in my opinion.

There was a poll on here a while back, it didn't surprise me the degree to which so many peoples analog work is heavily biassed towards traditional B&W.

 

[wblynch]

Back in the 1980's I shot Kodak color film. Mostly ASA 100. Later ISO 200 became as good as the former 100. Then ISO 400 was almost as good as the former 100.

In the 1990's I saw a lot of Fujifilm color on the market. In 100, 200 and 400. A little later came Xtra 400.

You know what? I can still buy Kodak Gold 200, 400 and Fuji 200, 400. So it's basically the same to me.

I admit, the cheaper films like Reala and Gold are no longer available in 120 size so we have to buy the pricier Ektar, Portra and Pro 400H for those cameras.

But there is plenty of color film still around.

 

[M-88]

Back in the 1980's I shot Kodak color film. Mostly ASA 100. Later ISO 200 became as good as the former 100. Then ISO 400 was almost as good as the former 100.

In the 1990's I saw a lot of Fujifilm color on the market. In 100, 200 and 400. A little later came Xtra 400.

You know what? I can still buy Kodak Gold 200, 400 and Fuji 200, 400. So it's basically the same to me.

I admit, the cheaper films like Reala and Gold are no longer available in 120 size so we have to buy the pricier Ektar, Portra and Pro 400H for those cameras.

But there is plenty of color film still around.

What is happening right now has a specific reason which has probably been already explained on previous pages, but I'm too lazy to read. So my opinion is this:

1. Those who use either 35 mm or 120 format film for hipster purpose will gladly use outdated film as well (take Lomography "sect" for example). It is still pretty much around every corner and will probably be like that for another two decades at least.
2. Those who use 35mm film for more serious purpose are not in high numbers, they all have their preferences and frankly a few high quality films is way better than a bunch of cheap alternatives. Although each brand has at least one cheap alternative in production, nicht wahr? Take Colorplus 200 for example, or C200.
3. Those who use medium format gear are represented in even smaller numbers and buying Ektar, Pro 400H, Velvia/Provia is not that difficult for them. Because why own a MF camera if you're unable to afford the film? No money? Okay, go back to 35 mm then! Heck, even I used Ektar and Acros 100 when I was shooting Bronica for amateur purpose. Didn't seem too expensive to me, especially considering the quality of the prints!

So the quantity of film isn't decreasing, variety is. And it's only natural. Amateurs don't need ten varieties of fresh film. Professionals can get by with a few high grade products as well.

 

[wblynch]

The day is coming soon where we will have only one color film available ... and we will all be damned grateful to have it.

 

[M-88]

The day is coming soon where we will have only one color film available ... and we will all be damned grateful to have it.

Fingers crossed for Ektar

 

[foc]

The day is coming soon where we will have only one color film available ... and we will all be damned grateful to have it.

Fuji Xtra 400 ?

 

[R.Gould]

te way things seem to be going with Fuji I think it will be a kodak film,

 

[RattyMouse]

te way things seem to be going with Fuji I think it will be a kodak film,

Fujifilm doesnt want to produce film and unless things change for the better, Kodak will be (financially)unable to.

 

[wblynch]

Some eastern European or Asian company will buy the remnants of Kodak and produce Color Plus 200 in a back alley 'factory'. Or it could be in Brazil..we will see....

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some eastern European or Asian company will buy the remnants of Kodak and produce Color Plus 200 in a back alley 'factory'. Or it could be in Brazil..we will see....

And this is based on inside information?

 

[wblynch]

Jeezus no. It's based on my wild assed guess. No different than any other conjectures on the internet forums.

 

[Sirius Glass]

My bad.

 

[wblynch]

It’s all good

 

[Helios 1984]

If colour films disappear completely, Photrio will make its own crowdfunded emulsion (Photrichrome?).

 

[AgX]

We Apuggers together long could have bought a whole plant. But of course we never would be able to agree on what to produce...

 

[David Brown]

We Apuggers together long could have bought a whole plant. But of course we never would be able to agree on what to produce...

Kodachrome, what else?