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

[RPC]

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.

I too printed on Cibachrome, bought books and learned what I could about It. But everything the books said about its problems were true, I found--high contrast, color impurities from unmasked slides, and some crossover. Although some subject matter looked good, I gave up on it because quality from negs overall was superior in those parameters.

Slides printed more than projected? Why don't you tell that to the millions of people out there who had slide projectors, and used them only for that purpose, while getting their prints from color negatives?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Another soul corrupted to the dark-side!

not completely. I still do both; like watching TV but still going to the movies sometimes.

 

[RPC]

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

I don't think that defines archival.

 

[Pioneer]

I don't think that defines archival.

Sure it does. If a digital image file can be opened without corruption then it is archival. How long that will continue is unknown. But there is no inherent reason that I am aware of that an image file cannot be kept in good condition for a very, very long time.

My brother and I have been sorting through Mom's photographs for the past few months in the process of moving her to another location. Unfortunately we have found many, many negatives and prints that are in very poor condition and may be unsalvageable. Her slides seem to be in slightly better condition, but not all, mostly those made with Kodachrome. Interestingly enough our best option appears to be digital conversion and then taking steps digitally to recover colors, etc. So even negatives and prints are not archival without ensuring continuing proper storage, and sometimes not even then.

This supposed archival advantage touted for film is a bit of a joke based on my personal experience, as well as that of others I suspect. I think both digital and film can be maintained for long periods of time given adequate attention and time. Unfortunately it is the adequate attention that quite often fails unless your name is HC Bresson or something similar. I would be willing to bet that the digital files of some of our current famous photographers will be well maintained just like the analog files of previous famous photographers. For the rest of us it is a bit more of a gamble.

 

[AgX]

Really?
Why didn't you tell me [that slide films were designed for projection] 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).

That these film were widely used as source for printing (I doubt that they were more used for printing than projecting) does not contradict that they were designed for projection.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I found--high contrast, color impurities from unmasked slides, and some crossover

All printers learnt about dealing with this very, very early on. It was not a reason or excuse to avoid Ilfochrome. Colour impurities and crossover could both arise through poor storage or expired raw materials, additional to imprecise filtration, and this was common, but not half as common as the terrible blight that affected supplies worldwide from about 2008 up to 2010 when, frankly, we'd had a gutful of Ilfochrome and the supplier. Colour transparency was not without fault, though! Transparency film is well known to have had specific difficulty in printing to Ilfochrome, e.g. Velvia/Provia with a lot of intense red, where Kodachrome was often suggested as a re-shoot substitute, and was proven to work well like this.

I also printed TMax 100 and Delta 100 negatives to Ilfochrome, along with experimental digital files printed to the analogue process and re-written to digital which was 50/50 in terms of success and not a stayer.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I found--high contrast, color impurities from unmasked slides, and some crossover

All printers learnt about dealing with this very, very early on. It was not a reason or excuse to avoid Ilfochrome. Colour impurities and crossover could both arise through poor storage or expired raw materials, additional to imprecise filtration, and this was common, but not half as common as the terrible blight that affected supplies worldwide from about 2008 up to 2010 when, frankly, we'd had a gutful of Ilfochrome and the supplier. Colour transparency was not without fault, though! Transparency film is well known to have had specific difficulty in printing to Ilfochrome, e.g. Velvia/Provia with a lot of intense red, where Kodachrome was often suggested as a re-shoot substitute, and was proven to work well like this.

I also printed TMax 100 and Delta 100 negatives to Ilfochrome, along with experimental digital files printed to the analogue process and re-written to digital which was 50/50 in terms of success and not a stayer.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

That these film were widely used as source for printing (I doubt that they were more used for printing than projecting) does not contradict that they were designed for projection.

How do you explain that magazines and millions of publications around the world strongly preferred receiving transparencies for their pagework, not negatives? For many decades transparencies were the print reproduction standard in publications (newspapers stuck with B&W for its speed in D&P, but colour work for inserts/spreads and magazines were largely colour). Negatives would often be rejected simply because editors wanted the immediacy of assessing an image on the lightbox in its real form, without having to fiddle a negative on a scanner. National Geographic is a very good, long-standing example of the application of slides to print. That we are still printing from slides today is not much different, but certainly much more efficient, straightforward and fuss-free than Ilfochrome -- which is why so many of us don't want to see it come back!

Also, printing from this medium slides) points to effective and proven multiple use that has been going on for at least 60 years, not that many amateurs were/are aware of it or its extent (as outlined above!).

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

I think both digital and film can be maintained for long periods of time given adequate attention and time.

Very, very true.

 

[RattyMouse]

Very, very true.

The problem is, two thirds of the film producers are not stable. One wants out, the other has serious financial problems. Ilford is the ONLY film producer that offers even a remote sense of stability.

 

[AgX]

How do you explain that magazines and millions of publications around the world strongly preferred receiving transparencies for their pagework, not negatives? For many decades transparencies were the print reproduction standard in publications.

To me the reason was historic. The first high-quality small format colour film were transparency films. Printers were used to go that way and stuck to it in times of modern print-form making. Due to their high density range they looked exceptional on the lightbox and could easyly fool people, in to what the printed outcome would be. The same time they easily could be checked by editors. But their high density range is opposed to that of the printed paper.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

Receivership, rescue from the "grave" by some of their senior employees, bankruptcy of the former Swiss operation which operated separately after the receivership and relatively recent purchase by a venture capital firm which meant the exit of some of their senior management.
Also, a failed attempt to re-develop property and secure the future of their manufacturing capacity - they have seven years left on their lease.
Surprise loss of their USA distributor.
Otherwise, hardly any Drama at all .

maybe I was wrong.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

But their high density range is opposed to that of the printed paper.

In print production there are many, many different types of stock for colour printing.
In the local context, covers were traditionally (and highly variably) glossy 320-380gsm stock while FCP (full-colour pagework) was on a similar lower wt sheen stock to give the best possible viewing result. The local magazines I have from the 1980s and 1990s still look wonderful (and very nostalgic) with page images produced from slides. I sometimes rue the fact that digital came around and changed so much, not necessarily for the better, but for the speed and efficiency; I do not like the look of digital print photography in magazines today (which is why I do not buy or look at such magazines) — it looks too artificial and faux.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Sure it does. If a digital image file can be opened without corruption then it is archival. How long that will continue is unknown. But there is no inherent reason that I am aware of that an image file cannot be kept in good condition for a very, very long time.
...

There are several reasons why it's not archival. The first is physical and the second is social.

Physically, there's "bit rot". Data on CD's, DVD's, USB sticks, hard drives won't last reliably between 10 or 20 years if left alone. Those minute electric charges that represent the thresholds of ones and zeros of digital data will decay over long periods of time. The only way to preserve them is to copy them ...and keep copying them. Copy them from the current popular media to the up and coming one for the future. In theory, it's easy. In practice, the vast majority of people don't do it or won't do it. That's the social aspect. My future great granddaughter Shawneequa won't bother copying those 20 USB sticks marked "Theo's Great Photos". However, she might open the family shoebox and, without any effort at all, observe pre-1900 photographs of my family in Hungary and decide to keep them.

 

[removed account4]

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?

not so sure about some of this
back in the day when i was assisting commercial guys all they shot and submitted to AD/CDs was chromes none of them were projected
and back when stock houses existed, and were selective about what they took all they wanted were chromes. they'd have you submit about 1000 of them 2x before
they would say they were interested ( or at least the ones in boston and pvd were like that ) now it is kind of embarrassing what passes for stock ( different day, different thread )
and none of it was projected...
regarding digital prints being archival ... according to state historic preservation offices throughout the USA and the LOC + image permeance institute they are archival.
there are very few SHPO that want film and prints for the state HABS jobs, they want digital files ( color or b/w ) and ink jet prints ( ilfachrome inks and specfic papers )
so according to repositories and archives + people who determine things, they are archival. according to my mini lab i was told fuji crystal archive paper ( i guess RC ) has a 800 year lifespan ...
sorry to quote a diana ross disco song but seems things are kinda ...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The only way to preserve them is to copy them ...and keep copying them.

That's correct. And have multiple redundancy sets to fall back on. I have not lost any files from 1996 onward. In those days, a 4Mb USB stick was a novelty, and I snapped up quite a few. Now there are Tb drives. I never knew what a gigglebite was in '96...now we're up to ticklebites...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
You very rarely hear of artists having a go at the new upstart that uses silver based film do you.

You think this only because you're too young. Back in the day, around 1910, I remember gigantic internet flame wars between the cubists, pointilists, fauvists, and impressionists. I thought it would never end.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

according to my mini lab i was told fuji crystal archive paper ( i guess RC ) has a 800 year lifespan ...

This accords well with popular knowledge, but it will depend on storage conditions, too.
Personally, I don't think we'll be around for 800 years to give much of a damn, but of course there's no harm in leaving a lasting image...

 

[DREW WILEY]

First of all, anyone who goes around predicting hundreds of years of permanence for any color media that showed up less than a decade ago is like a stockbroker who claims you'll be a millionaire if you invest in a company that doesn't even own an office yet. Second, I pulled out one of my numerous portfolio cases of Cibachrome yesterday, which I hadn't opened in at least 15 yrs, and remain amazed at just how much better those look than any current process, esp stinkjet. I'm slowly getting into that league with RA4 prints, and would really like to fool around with dye transfer some more.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Jnanian - sounds like your minilab guy should run for public office. Politicians thrive on utter BS.

 

[removed account4]

First of all, anyone who goes around predicting hundreds of years of permanence for any color media that showed up less than a decade ago is like a stockbroker who claims you'll be a millionaire if you invest in a company that doesn't even own an office yet. Second, I pulled out one of my numerous portfolio cases of Cibachrome yesterday, which I hadn't opened in at least 15 yrs, and remain amazed at just how much better those look than any current process, esp stinkjet. I'm slowly getting into that league with RA4 prints, and would really like to fool around with dye transfer some more.

ummm, i think his name is wilhelm.

Jnanian - sounds like your minilab guy should run for public office. Politicians thrive on utter BS.

hmmm
maybe you should contact fuji she quoted them.

 

[jim10219]

Digital is infinitely archivable. You can duplicate it a trillion times and not lose any information. Sure the file formats may change, but when they do, someone comes out with a conversion program to keep those old file formats useful. It may not be convenient, but neither is cleaning and printing a 100 year old negative. Film may last a few hundred years under perfect conditions, but digital can go on as long as humans exist.

Beyond that digital does color better. Much better. That’s why I rarely shoot C41 or E6 anymore. Different films and darkroom papers may have different looks that digital can’t mimic, but the colors are no where near as accurate or vibrant. Post processing is also no where near as flexible. Digital sensors also do high ISO much better. And digital laps film in terms of resolution. If you compare a 35mm film to a top of the line, full frame digital, it’s not even close. Even medium format film is dwarfed by the latest medium format digital cameras.

All of that being said, I do love film. I love the process. I love the connection to the work. I love the connection to the past and the skill it requires. It’s like the difference between a synthesizer keyboard and a grand piano. The synth does so much more and can even mimic the grand piano (quite well in some cases), but the grand piano just allows a kind of connection between artist and art that you can’t get from a digital device.

Plus, you can’t charge as much for a digital print as you can for a wet print. So it adds value, and a bit of respect.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Maybe some entry-level customer service gofer at Fuji marketing said something nutty like that. But he had to get something on his work resume before applying to a job at McDonalds. Their own official tech sheets predict visible yellowing of CA products within 50 yrs. I doubt Wilhelm stated anything remotely that irresponsible. But there were lots of flaws inherent to his accelerated aging methodology which others have addressed.

 

[DREW WILEY]

A digital file isn't a photograph. I've gone through lots of attic boxes of Ambrotypes, tintypes, daugerrotypes, cyanotypes, albumen prints etc, and could instantly see what seemed worth keeping. That's because our human eye doesn't change its own "technology" every ten years. But can you imagine someone a hundred years from now stumbling on a thousand dusty discs that all look the same and even bothering to figure out how to open them up, unless one was labeled, Secret Swiss bank account numbers?

 

[NortheastPhotographic]

The film revival isn't..."it's 1985 again".

It's film isn't going to die off completely, and there remains a relatively stable user base of the limited materials we currently have. I opened up my lab last year, and have experienced good growth, with more and more users finding me every week. They don't want prints, and I only offer pigment prints anyway. They get high res scans that they can work with in LR, and then print from or share. With all the films we currently have, do we really need many more color stocks? Plus the films we have are more versatile than ever! Kodak is making small batches of ULF. The weak link of RA4 was always the permanence, but now it's easier than ever to make archival pigment prints, in color, on a variety of fiber based stocks! I'm even still personally shooting Super 8. This is to say nothing of the plethora of affordable LF cameras from Chamonix, Shen-Hao, and Intrepid.

Photo enthusiasts are the only folks left who bother to own real cameras, and a good number of these have an interest in film. If you adapt your workflow somewhat, you can make it work quite well.

 

[George Mann]

Beyond that digital does color better. Much better. That’s why I rarely shoot C41 or E6 anymore. Different films and darkroom papers may have different looks that digital can’t mimic, but the colors are no where near as accurate or vibrant. Post processing is also no where near as flexible. Digital sensors also do high ISO much better. And digital laps film in terms of resolution. If you compare a 35mm film to a top of the line, full frame digital, it’s not even close. Even medium format film is dwarfed by the latest medium format digital cameras.

What has this guy been smoking?