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

Lachlan Young · Mar 18, 2018

Sirius Glass said:
Do you spread that on the ground for your gardens? Exactly how do you manufacture such manure?

I was a bit grumpy, but it's hard not to get a wee bit irked by constant complaints about discontinued films from people whose annual throughput is less than 10 rolls who don't print optically (or get optical prints made) & whose understanding of colour seems to have been permanently limited by Kodachrome ( you know the sort of person I mean )

In better news, I am reliably informed that at least a couple of the custom colour labs in London are now sufficiently busy with optical colour print work from negatives that they've all but stopped doing digital C-Prints...

AgX · Mar 18, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
In better news, I am reliably informed that at least a couple of the custom colour labs in London are now sufficiently busy with optical colour print work from negatives that they've all but stopped doing digital C-Prints...

If that is so, it is contrary to what we see at other parts of the world. I hardly know any lab over here that is still doing optical colour prints.

Lachlan Young · Mar 18, 2018

AgX said:
If that is so, it is contrary to what we see at other parts of the world. I hardly know any lab over here that is still doing optical colour prints.

Grieger definitely still seems to be offering large scale optical enlarger prints, likely to be others in Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart etc, many are likely to have pretty minimal/ out of date web presence if they're anything like their counterparts over here.

AgX · Mar 18, 2018

Grieger was in insolvency, has been bought up and half of their employees had to leave.
Their offer of large format (mural) optical enlarging is a niche within a niche.

AgX · Mar 18, 2018

The basic issue with this thread is that the members here that have knowledge on actual production figures could be counted at ones fingers. If there are so many...
And obviously they have to be silent.

What remains:

We got people that report locally increase of interest. (But someone for instance buying a camera and one film just to give it a try hardly will increase film sales.)
We got people here that report seeing more people on street using a film camera.
We got other people here that see the same number but younger people.
All this varies extremely between places.

Film retail now is quite different from 20 years ago: more internet retailers. Thus more veiled.

One sector undoubtedly is thriving. Instant photography. But also here at large differences between places.

We see a lot of blogs, initiatives, kickstarter campaigns and such. But what can we deduce from that concerning sales?

So in general: the market got much more complex and much harder to evaluate.

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2018

Armandillo said:
I keep reading on photo sites as well as in the mainstream media about film making a comeback. However, the reality is that every year, there are fewer and fewer color films available. I just read that Agfa has discontinued its Vista line of color print films. In addition, Fuji is apparently only selling its Velvia and Provia slide films by the individual roll and not in five-packs. There are some that speculate that Fuji has actually discontinued these films and is just trying to make a bundle on its back stock. If that is the case, unless Kodak comes through soon on its promise to revive Ektachrome, E-6 slide film is basically dead. Why are manufacturers discontinuing color films despite the alleged increased demand? I have a hard time believing that all of the growth is in black and white. If Fuji does discontinue its E-6 films, is there any chance that a smaller company will start to make these films?

not sure how it is all hype they are re releasing kodachrome soon
besides from what i read by people digital can't compare to
anything color film has/had to offer. it isn't flexible, it can't be enlaged past IDK a 2x3" 72 DPI file
can't be printed on a variety of media, costs a ton of $$ to develop and purchase, and its useless technology ...

AgX · Mar 18, 2018

Kodak Alaris since their establishing had a low profile concerning films. So far film seemed the least wanted part of an eat-or-die deal.

Just recently they show some engagement. And even that is hidden at some facebook page or even more obscure podcast. We shall have to wait what actually reaches the shelves and how their engagement will evolve.

George Mann · Mar 18, 2018

jnanian said:
they are re releasing kodachrome soon

Really?!

BMbikerider · Mar 18, 2018

I smell a TROLL!

Ivo · Mar 18, 2018

RPC said:
Digital photographs look as good as they do only because of lots of camera software manipulation done to the sensor output, and often user and printer manipulation as well. Thus a digital image is to a degree a synthesized image. A negative itself requires no manipulation to produce a quality image--all recorded information is there already in high quality, and ready to print or scan. (Darkroom manipulation such as dodging and burning is due to the deficiencies of print materials, not negatives.) Do the same level of manipulation to a negative, even 35mm, that is done to the output of a sensor, and it would probably blow digital away. In any event a digital image ends up being converted to a compressed format, which degrades it.

There is no practical evidence of this statement, in contrary i’m afraid.

George Mann · Mar 18, 2018

Ivo said:
There is no practical evidence of this statement, in contrary i’m afraid.

Everything RPC said is correct. Which part do you not agree with?

Pioneer · Mar 18, 2018

If you do any investing you quickly learn that markets go up and markets go down. Film is a market. We may be at a point where this market can't take too much down.

Enjoy what you have while you have it. I don't think anything is truly forever.

Stockpile a little and learn to develop and print it yourself. It is a wonderful hobby.

Learning to coat your own is always an option...

...or not.

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2018

George Mann said:
Everything RPC said is correct. Which part do you not agree with?

in the end none of it matters does it ? most people who use digital don't push the medium to its limits, most people who use film don't do it either
no matter what they say / claim, its all smoke and mirrors. digital does pretty well compared to film. and im sure if i made 2 photographs and put them side by side
one made from color negative film from a MF or even 45 negative and the same size print from a d200 even most people wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
these arguments are old and tired. use what you want, don't use what you don't want ... but the idea that digital hasn't surpassed 35mm or getting close to MF quality
is kind of like nonsense that only film zealots chant .. im a film zealot, make my own emulsions, do crazy old processes, shoot big chromes and big c41, i also
use a 10-12year old digitral cramera and make xerox internegatives for alternative processes or large enlargements, or my phone ... but, in the end none of it matters ..
enjoy what you have cause who knows when its all gone..

RPC · Mar 18, 2018

jnanian said:
in the end none of it matters does it ?

To some, for whatever reason, it may matter a great deal.

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2018

RPC said:
To some, for whatever reason, it may matter a great deal.

i suppose ...

David Brown · Mar 18, 2018

jnanian said:
... im sure if i made 2 photographs and put them side by side
one made from color negative film from a MF or even 45 negative and the same size print from a d200 even most people wouldn't be able to tell them apart.
...

I actually do this in black and white. I have a monochrome pt/pl print and an inkjet of the same subject made by a friend of mine. I show them to students and during presentations when I am evangelizing for film. I always have to tell viewers which is which - other than the guesses, of course. My point has always been that they are two different media, and one can do excellent - and comparable - work in both.

ic-racer · Mar 18, 2018

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

I suspect because color transparency has almost no option for prints and color negative is extremely time consuming to print, and the prints are not archival.

George Mann · Mar 18, 2018

jnanian said:
in the end none of it matters does it ?

I will argue that the fact that people still use film says it does.

BrianShaw · Mar 18, 2018

George Mann said:
Really?!

I’m hoping that was either a Freudian slip, or some sort of humor.

removed account4 · Mar 18, 2018

David Brown said:
I actually do this in black and white. I have a monochrome pt/pl print and an inkjet of the same subject made by a friend of mine. I show them to students and during presentations when I am evangelizing for film. I always have to tell viewers which is which - other than the guesses, of course. My point has always been that they are two different media, and one can do excellent - and comparable - work in both.

exactly
i showed 2 prints like this to someone who i knew pretty well
and who was a film lover he said he HATED digital ...
he was never able to figure out what print was what... and now
he only shoots digital from what i was told .. kind of weird/

Sirius Glass · Mar 18, 2018

Lachlan Young said:
I was a bit grumpy, but it's hard not to get a wee bit irked by constant complaints about discontinued films from people whose annual throughput is less than 10 rolls who don't print optically (or get optical prints made) & whose understanding of colour seems to have been permanently limited by Kodachrome ( you know the sort of person I mean )

In better news, I am reliably informed that at least a couple of the custom colour labs in London are now sufficiently busy with optical colour print work from negatives that they've all but stopped doing digital C-Prints...

We all get grumpy about something sooner or later.

RPC · Mar 18, 2018

ic-racer said:
I suspect because color transparency has almost no option for prints and color negative is extremely time consuming to print, and the prints are not archival.

Transparencies are designed for projection. If one wants prints, one should use color negative.

I print color negs in trays at room temperature and can make a good color print about as fast as as a good b&w. And speed isn't everything.

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

Poisson Du Jour · Mar 18, 2018

RPC said:
Transparencies are designed for projection. If one wants prints, one should use color negative.

Really?
Why didn't you tell me that when I began printing to Cibachrome and then Ilfochrome Classic in 1979?
The reality is a bit further removed from a black and white statement: transparencies were much, much more commonly printed from, not projected. That's why CIba/IC was so utterly successful for a long time (from 1963 when it was first introduced).

Negative film could be printed to Ciba/IC but it was nowhere near as punchy.

Poisson Du Jour · Mar 18, 2018

ic-racer said:
I suspect because color transparency has almost no option for prints and color negative is extremely time consuming to print, and the prints are not archival.

Oh, get out. This is "the sky is falling!" stuff.
There is home printing, commercial in-lab (darkroom) RA-4 and hybrid RA-4.

Poisson Du Jour · Mar 18, 2018

RPC said:
but in any case, is a digital print archival? Is a digital file archival?

"Is a digital file archival?"
If I can still open and print from files first created in 1995, then something must be up...

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

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency