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

[alanrockwood]

None of the film companies publish sales volume.

That's kind of what I thought, so basically we are all guessing about this. I do sometimes hear vague rumors that a few stores report some increases in film sales from time to time, probably as a result of certain photography classes that may emphasize film photography.

 

[removed account4]

The current HABS/HAER/HALS requirements for USA Department of Interior is large format b & w film --

yup this is true at the federal level,
they ALSO accept ink prints
( yeah i know its just a proof for the negative ...
and depending on the level of need, for some projects, they accept smaller than 4x5 as well ).

i was specifically talking about the STATES version of HABS/HAER/HALS
... there was a big push about 20+ years ago to only accept digital files ( office of digital transformation ? ).
i had a long conversation with jack boucher a handful of years ago
( he was the chief of the habs project since 1958, he passed away in 2012 )
told me HABS would not be switching, even 10 years ago a lot of states ( because of storage issues)
took that path. since he retired, HABS started accepting the prints that way (ink)
( i haven't seen any, but from all reports from the people at the habs office in dc they look beautiful ).
2 years ago there was a vacancy at the HABS office in DC ( not sure if you remember the "ansel adams of the park service ad media blitz )
and if you looked at the requirements for the position, it was not only film and paper ...
but also included a hefty amount of the modern digital component.

... i'm in New England and i think Maine was the last hold-out ( or at least was... a couple-a 3 years back )
.. nationally, from what i have learned through conversations with others who do or ire habs work,
most? a lot of? many? states want full-on digital files and ink. maybe not for all projects but still ..
its not that they accept everything, there is a specific set of printers, inks and papers file formats &c that they accept. i
used to do my best to convince my clients at least accept the film as a "hard copy" .. in case something goes bad
.. they've been informed by the feds & others files and ink take less effort to archive and last as long
( or longer ) than film and silver prints, its hard to argue with your boss.
i was doing historic preservation work back when they only accepted fiber prints for national register nominations
and tax credit certifications, but cost and non- availablity of fiber based printers had the park service
change their requirements to rc prints .. then 15-20years later ... ditgit@l.

that said, i offer both formats/services, or film+scan and will shoot whatever format they need...
(but can't guarantee i will have files to swap out if at some unspecified date in the future
the intern backs-up a version of super mario brothers by mistake, instead of the 1860s wing of the hospital that was just razed ...
i'm guessing if the prints all turn metalic green or magenta
( even thought magenta isn't a color )
they can print new proofs themselves, or do whatever they will do in 2254 )

YMMV

 

[Berri]

actually only fuji is discontinuing films...(agfa vista is fuji stuff, and the official vista website doesn't report anything about it being discontinued. This rumor has been around for at least the last two years and yet agfa vista it still available to pourchase at many european online stores.) Kodak is actually reintroducing films. It looks like Kodak has been able to scale down the production line so that the volume of film manufactured reflects the actual market demand, making it sustainable and possibly profitable. Today's colour film choice is actually quite good, and with Ektachrome litterally just round the corner it will be even better; you have many consumer grade film that are incredibly good for the price (Kodacolor plus, proimage, gold, ultramax and the lomography CN 100 400 & 800, vista, fuji C200 Venus and natura) and the professional films like ektar and portra, specialty films like the cinestill if you want T films...what more do you need?

 

[Berri]

None of the film companies publish sales volume.

all i could find is this:

"
Consumer and Film Division (CFD) revenues for the fourth quarter were $47 million, flat compared with Q4 of 2016. Operational EBITDA declined from negative $2 million to negative $6 million.

For the year, revenues for CFD were $198 million, down from $221 million in 2016. Operational EBITDA for the division was down $32 million for the year, driven by the continued expected decline in the consumer inkjet business and higher film manufacturing costs associated with a vendor transition.

CFD’s brand licensing business had continued growth in 2017, adding twelve brand licensing partners including the key areas of instant film photography and 3D printing for the educational market."

but it doesn't say much about film...

 

[RattyMouse]

all i could find is this:

"
Consumer and Film Division (CFD) revenues for the fourth quarter were $47 million,
but it doesn't say much about film...

Actually it says quite a lot, how small film sales are. The CFD group is responsible for consumer, industrial, and motion picture film. Additionally, consumer products related to printers, inks and all kinds of 3rd party licenses of the Kodak name.

47 million dollars is the total of all the sales from this. I work for a small company, very small in fact and the numbers above make the CFD just slightly under twice the size by revenue of my small company.

Strip out everything but still photography film and that number drops by quite a lot.

I wish Fuji published such numbers. They are not even in motion picture film. Surely they must be even smaller.

 

[Berri]

Actually it says quite a lot, how small film sales are. The CFD group is responsible for consumer, industrial, and motion picture film. Additionally, consumer products related to printers, inks and all kinds of 3rd party licenses of the Kodak name.

47 million dollars is the total of all the sales from this. I work for a small company, very small in fact and the numbers above make the CFD just slightly under twice the size by revenue of my small company.

Strip out everything but still photography film and that number drops by quite a lot.

I wish Fuji published such numbers. They are not even in motion picture film. Surely they must be even smaller.

yes, numbers are low, but it doesn't say wether film alone ha gone up or down.

 

[trendland]

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?

You just got me here Armandillo.Yes - I am one of that "speculators" and I am quite sure Fuji don't need a todays production of E6 slide films.Because they definitivly have back stocks for selling their films.In the past (15 years ago) such kind of storage was a simple "buffer" to avoid constantly actual emulsion backing of films with smaler demand. Remember E6 films had smaler demand ever in comparison.The percentage to slide films was on a top around 7 - 8,5% of all produced films in Europe during the 70th. And in Europe slides were more popular than in some other countrys. Kodak did the same with special emulsions.(because their was no other economical way) Remarcable if you regard the highly demand within the 90th! Kodakcolor Gold 200 was the top selling film ever (with its nearly same clones) later it was Gold 400.There wasn't a need to store this films at Kodak. The demand on this (and other) amateuric films was as high that Kodak wasn't able to produce it in one factory with machines as great and fast we can't imagine todays. Different production lines in some countries " eject" masses of equivalents on 135-36 from this films. (in the near of 1 billion/year or higher - we may guess) Regarding E6 it seams to be simular with 2 - 3 popular E6 emulsion (also the amateuric ones) but just around 6 - 7 % of biggest c41 scales? What about special films? Thungsten 320 E6 for example? There wasn't a way on a big coater (just from my point)
because this machines ran off within hours (completing the full demand of a year).
You may guess this special thungsten films have just 0,5 - 1 % of all Kodak E6 wich [itself] have just 6,5% of all Kodaks.So the production of this special films was more effective on higher scales (then it maneged the demand of 2 -3 years).
Todays procedures must be in the near of such methods - no alternate ways (just from my point) even same procedure on smaler coating machines. This is my argumentation to state :"All E6 films todays saw production in the past" Exept Kodaks new Ektachrome - ( if Kodak would be able to sell the rest of E100G for example they havn't had the need to discontinue it 2012.)
But storage get off and Kodak decided against new production runs. Imagine that Fuji is destroying the demand to Fuji films via massive price increasement over and over.
At last the demand is very small - then follow with discontinuation.
This method isn't real smart - with exeption of smaler cost of production years ago and double pricing todays.
Every Fuji discontinuation of films is no real discontinuation better to state it is a decision against a new production run - if Fujis "back stock" is running off.
So Kodak discontinued firstly a couple of rare films in 220. They followed with 120 and 35mm thungsten films. Kodak HIE did also not see actual production month before Kodak discontinued it.
But if a manufacturer is stating today: We have a real production of this product - the manufacturer isn't a real liar.Because you may see the packaging of a product as "part" of the production prozess.And I realy belive on actual packaging of Fuji Velvia/Provia.

with regards

PS : The question of interest is the following : Has Fuji decided to some further production runs (backing the emulsion) of Velvia ? In 2009/2012 for example ? The next question is :
In what size of back stock Velvia is avaible (how long will it last).
Just remember this lucky guy who called Fuji to ask about remaining 8x10 Velvia 50 stock! Next day he bought it. In what amounds?
He bought A L L remaing Velvia50 in 8 x 10. A year later the prices to simular stuff doubled.
Fujis interesst to assemble Velvia50 in 8x10 again was real 0% - but from what reason?

 

[Berri]

You just got me here Armandillo.Yes - I am one of that "speculators" and I am quite sure Fuji don't need a todays production of E6 slide films.Because they definitivly have back stocks for selling their films.In the past (15 years ago) such kind of storage was a simple "buffer" to avoid constantly actual emulsion backing of films with smaler demand. Remember E6 films had smaler demand ever in comparison.The percentage to slide films was on a top around 7 - 8,5% of all produced films in Europe during the 70th. And in Europe slides were more popular than in some other countrys. Kodak did the same with special emulsions.(because their was no other economical way) Remarcable if you regard the highly demand within the 90th! Kodakcolor Gold 200 was the top selling film ever (with its nearly same clones) later it was Gold 400.There wasn't a need to store this films at Kodak. The demand on this (and other) amateuric films was as high that Kodak wasn't able to produce it in one factory with machines as great and fast we can't imagine todays. Different production lines in some countries " eject" masses of equivalents on 135-36 from this films. (in the near of 1 billion/year or higher - we may guess) Regarding E6 it seams to be simular with 2 - 3 popular E6 emulsion (also the amateuric ones) but just around 6 - 7 % of biggest c41 scales? What about special films? Thungsten 320 E6 for example? There wasn't a way on a big coater (just from my point)
because this machines ran off within hours (completing the full demand of a year).
You may guess this special thungsten films have just 0,5 - 1 % of all Kodak E6 wich [itself] have just 6,5% of all Kodaks.So the production of this special films was more effective on higher scales (then it maneged the demand of 2 -3 years).
Todays procedures must be in the near of such methods - no alternate ways (just from my point) even same procedure on smaler coating machines. This is my argumentation to state :"All E6 films todays saw production in the past" Exept Kodaks new Ektachrome - ( if Kodak would be able to sell the rest of E100G for example they havn't had the need to discontinue it 2012.)
But storage get off and Kodak decided against new production runs. Imagine that Fuji is destroying the demand to Fuji films via massive price increasement over and over.
At last the demand is very small - then follow with discontinuation.
This method isn't real smart - with exeption of smaler cost of production years ago and double pricing todays.
Every Fuji discontinuation of films is no real discontinuation better to state it is a decision against a new production run - if Fujis "back stock" is running off.
So Kodak discontinued firstly a couple of rare films in 220. They followed with 120 and 35mm thungsten films. Kodak HIE did also not see actual production month before Kodak discontinued it.
But if a manufacturer is stating today: We have a real production of this product - the manufacturer isn't a real liar.Because you may see the packaging of a product as "part" of the production prozess.And I realy belive on actual packaging of Fuji Velvia/Provia.

with regards

PS : The question of interest is the following : Has Fuji decided to some further production runs (backing the emulsion) of Velvia ? In 2009/2012 for example ? The next question is :
In what size of back stock Velvia is avaible (how long will it last).
Just remember this lucky guy who called Fuji to ask about remaining 8x10 Velvia 50 stock! Next day he bought it. In what amounds?
He bought A L L remaing Velvia50 in 8 x 10. A year later the prices to simular stuff doubled.
Fujis interesst to assemble Velvia50 in 8x10 again was real 0% - but from what reason?

not sure I understand what you are saying. Do you think that Fuji is selling old stock? So the expiry date on the box is just a hoax? come on...

 

[trendland]

The expiration date comes on a box when a film is assembled to special formats within its packaging.I realy see no problem from that case.[No way to repack amounds of films and print a new expiration date].But these assembling of single films comes from origin masterolls.(I know that you just also know this Berry) - but here is the problem.Masterolls have its identification via production date AND emulsion numbers.The same number you see on your film box.But there is nothing to identify the production date of manufacturing the emulsion. (The original masteroll production date).What you might find out is the date of assembling (produced 2017 in Japan) for example.AND we might see : There is NO NEED to give the production date of emulsion backing because it is a normal procedure that you have an interims storage of masterolls and time to time assembling to different formats. And a film is indeed "New" when it is assembled because Masterolls see couled and freezed storage.In the past every few month manufacturers did need new masterolls to assemble films.To special films they need it weekly sometimes dayly.The example of "permanent" production of masterolls (without a single break 24/7 - exeptions to some times for maintanance).In todays demand a manufacturer don't need this again.Thats the real chance to produce films (in biggest amounds to demand scales more than a year)Kodak definitivly made the decision to produce new Ektachrome not from marketing reserarch in perspective of 2017/18. They need a bigger scale of demand to min. 3 - 5 years to manage the investments.In case of Fuji I am sure they had no todays emulsion backing with E6. The stuff comes from the past. No problem from quality but a problem to next production run.Fuji will not do it again.The better way is to increase pricing more and more till last Velvia is sold. This will also longer the time E6 is avaible, it will higher the profit,at last it give the option to state :The demand is much to less to produce this product any longer.The managers of such manufacturers are no complete idiots. They made their decision years ago and produced such films to the "LAST" run in higher scales. A bit unfaire to state: "the "production" is much to expansive today we have to increase the pricing again with + 30%."and this from time to time again
Infair in concern that assembling of films is not that expensive (but emulsion backing in smaler scales is horrable expensive indeed).
But emulsion backing of Fuji E6 was long ago in the past - so E6 films from Fuji are still discontinued.
Fuji will inform us when the point is happened that back storage of films
(masterolls for last time assembling)
will come short.
So it is not realy contraproductive (from Fujis side) to increase pricing more and more and follow with discontinuation.
[I have to state last time again : JUST FROM MY POINT]
So everybody may belive in todays actual film production of Fuji [emulsion backing] but better you have to be not "Soo sure"

with regards

 

[George Mann]

There's nothing artificial about digital

This is sheer ignorance!

 

[trendland]

This is sheer ignorance!

From my point it did not like the "long time stability" with Digital. That is my persional main point. I better have problems with "little"color shifts in 30years old slides than to be sad about a simple lost of 59.000 digital pictures after just 14 years (from defect medium).And my granddads
Bw films mostly have no defects after 85 years. We all may wonder with digital datas in the future a real problem.
with regards

PS : > 80 years old

 

[faberryman]

And when you are gone will anyone care about those 59,000 images? Seriously.

 

[trendland]

Whether I will go neither I will see a lost of 59.000 pictures. Neither I will spend $46.000,- to have digital midt format - still using film on higher formats.History archievement is still becoming more complicate caused from digital explosion. ...by the
way.with regards

 

[trendland]

Hope we will see actual new films soon.With a guarantee of about 3 - 4 years this new films are avaible then because of min. production volume in that size. Interisting issue by the way with Ferrania. Because Ferrania is handling very small production size but this may change next.With all other exept bw films we can't be sure - you can buy them in the short time perspective. Possible mostly see further discontinuation.with regards

 

[removed account4]

This is sheer ignorance!

not really
it is the same level of artificiality as film..
its like saing digital b/w images look plastic ...
none of any of it looks real ... besides, reality is boring and as much fun as
getting a splinter removed.

sure, its more FUN for some .. the other is more FUN for others ..
none of any of these arguments matters to anyone but the user of the medium ..
everyone has their own likes, dislikes pet peeves, interests and disciplines.

what cracks me up about threads like this is that its like
insisting to a 9 year old with a sweet tooth that waterlogged soggey swollen brussel sprouts taste good ..
sure, maybe to you, but s/he'd rather eat carmalized onions ... or to someone who loves using their classic
leica that its a piece of junk because its not a sinar.

getting back to the OP's OP

it would be a question you might pose to the runner or emulsive.com perhaps EM
has a better idea of what the market and manufacturers are up to ...

 

[George Mann]

not really
it is the same level of artificiality as film.

Will I be the worlds last intelligent man?

 

[Sirius Glass]

There's nothing artificial about digital or indeed any other technique that uses a lens to produce an image on a flat surface. Aesthetics is in the eye of the beholder and the essential truth of what the OP says will come to pass ie digital will surpass film in terms of (image) quality - it is inevitable because digital is being continually enhanced - film is not but that does not mean everyone will necessarily like or want the product.

You are missing the point that there are limitations to digital that must be addressed to surpass film. First the for detectors RGGB cannot become the same size or smaller than grain without a scientific breakthrough. Second digital data is perishable: files must be regularly refreshed of the individual bits will become corrupted. And to rise above this limitation requires a scientific breakthrough. Third, data formats and digital media change with advancements, if the files are not migrated to the newer formats and media as some point there will be no devices to read that data, hence the files are unreadable. This cannot be corrected with a scientific breakthrough, it requires someone, eventually the custodial inheritor of the files, to reformat the files and port the files to the newer media.

 

[faberryman]

You are missing the point that there are limitations to digital that must be addressed to surpass film. First the for detectors RGGB cannot become the same size or smaller than grain without a scientific breakthrough. Second digital data is perishable: files must be regularly refreshed of the individual bits will become corrupted. And to rise above this limitation requires a scientific breakthrough. Third, data formats and digital media change with advancements, if the files are not migrated to the newer formats and media as some point there will be no devices to read that data, hence the files are unreadable. This cannot be corrected with a scientific breakthrough, it requires someone, eventually the custodial inheritor of the files, to reformat the files and port the files to the newer media.

You act as if no one has thought of this before and nothing has been done to address the issue. Has not the Library of Congress enacted best practices? Are there not industry standards for important works? How many billions of film negatives have ended up in landfills without so much as a shrug by the film advocates? If my main and backup drives all fail tomorrow civilization will not grieve any more than when my early negatives were lost in a move. My advice is that if you are worried about posterity, then print and keep your portfolio organized and up to date. You might even look into bequeathing your images to a receptive museum. Instead of worrying, be proactive and plan ahead. What exactly have you done?

 

[Sirius Glass]

You are missing the point that there are limitations to digital that must be addressed to surpass film. First the for detectors RGGB cannot become the same size or smaller than grain without a scientific breakthrough. Second digital data is perishable: files must be regularly refreshed of the individual bits will become corrupted. And to rise above this limitation requires a scientific breakthrough. Third, data formats and digital media change with advancements, if the files are not migrated to the newer formats and media as some point there will be no devices to read that data, hence the files are unreadable. This cannot be corrected with a scientific breakthrough, it requires someone, eventually the custodial inheritor of the files, to reformat the files and port the files to the newer media.

You act as if no one has thought of this before and nothing has been done to address the issue. Has not the Library of Congress enacted best practices? Are there not industry standards for important works? How many billions of film negatives have ended up in landfills without so much as a shrug by the film advocates? If my main and backup drives all fail tomorrow civilization will not grieve any more than when my early negatives were lost in a move.

No, just pointing out one of many elephants in the room.

 

[Ivo]

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

It is not a matter of not agreeing, RPC’s explanation is a purely theoretical story. As I said: there is no practical evidence.

If this story does cut woods, and manipulating a negative the same amount of digital, it implies the excellence of digital workflow because scanning and manipulation is digital workflow. There is no other way to manipulate analogue images, so or you import the so called inferiority of digital workflow and the statement make no sense, or you make the analogue image better, the latter would prove the digital superiority.

This is of course rhetorical, but it explains why I find the explanation of RPC at minimum not relevant and practical unproven.

Yes Analogue workflow is amazingly powerful and the result can be stunning, but not for the mentioned reason.

 

[removed account4]

Will I be the worlds last intelligent man?

i'm at a loss ... whats intelligence have to do with this ?



btw brusselsprouts are good fried in pork fat

 

[RPC]

It is not a matter of not agreeing, RPC’s explanation is a purely theoretical story. As I said: there is no practical evidence.

If this story does cut woods, and manipulating a negative the same amount of digital, it implies the excellence of digital workflow because scanning and manipulation is digital workflow. There is no other way to manipulate analogue images, so or you import the so called inferiority of digital workflow and the statement make no sense, or you make the analogue image better, the latter would prove the digital superiority.

This is of course rhetorical, but it explains why I find the explanation of RPC at minimum not relevant and practical unproven.

Yes Analogue workflow is amazingly powerful and the result can be stunning, but not for the mentioned reason.

How manipulation to a negative could actually be done, as is done in a digital camera, was not the main point of my statement. I was simply implying that if it was done, it would outperform digital since a negative is superior to what we get from a sensor. Are you familiar with how digital cameras work? The output of a sensor is quite wonky and requires a lot of manipulation to approach reality and even come close to the look of a negative. If a comparable level of manipulation was done after scanning a negative, and did come out superior, then that would definitely show the superiority of film--it is superior after the same level of manipulation because it is superior to start with.

It is my view that film is superior (technically) because it requires no such manipulation.

I stand behind everthing else I said in my original post and would like to elaborate further but is not appropriate here.

I admit both mediums have their advantages, but I originally posted since you claimed digital quality surpassed film; I found it necessary to give another perspective based on facts--the way digital cameras produce images.


.

 

[Sirius Glass]

How manipulation to a negative could actually be done, as is done in a digital camera, was not the main point of my statement. I was simply implying that if it was done, it would outperform digital since a negative is superior to what we get from a sensor. Are you familiar with how digital cameras work? The output of a sensor is quite wonky and requires a lot of manipulation to approach reality and even come close to the look of a negative. If a comparable level of manipulation was done after scanning a negative, and did come out superior, then that would definitely show the superiority of film--it is superior after the same level of manipulation because it is superior to start with.

It is my view that film is superior (technically) because it requires no such manipulation.

I stand behind everthing else I said in my original post and would like to elaborate further but is not appropriate here.

I admit both mediums have their advantages, but I originally posted since you claimed digital quality surpassed film; I found it necessary to give another perspective based on facts--the way digital cameras produce images.


.

Heck with Fauto$hop one does not even need at have an image, just draw whatever you want on the screen.

 

[mshchem]

Maybe its time for you to get a new printer.

I have two different inkjet printers that have never clogged once. The bigger one is three years old and the smaller one is 5 years old. And I certainly do not use either of them daily. I use them once or twice a month, though I do quite a bit of printing during those periods.

However, I do own a small Epson that is clogged every time I go to use it. I rarely use it any longer and I should really probably donate it to someone. Unfortunately it is a bit of a relic and nobody with any sense would probably want it. I do have several more ink cartridges for it and it does put out decent results once the jets are clean.

I had an Epson that took something like 8 cartridges. I would love to find something that didn't clog or use 5% of the cartridges "priming and cleaning " but this is an analog thread so Viva la Silver!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I don't think that defines archival.

'archival' is better defined as life expectancy or LE as in LE100 for something that will last for 100 years and still be in reasonable shape whatever that may be.