None of the film companies publish sales volume.
yup this is true at the federal level,The current HABS/HAER/HALS requirements for USA Department of Interior is large format b & w film --
all i could find is this: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,
but it doesn't say much about film...
yes, numbers are low, but it doesn't say wether film alone ha gone up or down.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.
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 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...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?
There's nothing artificial about digital
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 granddadsThis is sheer ignorance!
not reallyThis is sheer ignorance!
not really
it is the same level of artificiality as film.
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 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?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 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.
It is not a matter of not agreeing, RPC’s explanation is a purely theoretical story. As I said: there is no practical evidence.Everything RPC said is correct. Which part do you not agree with?
Will I be the worlds last intelligent man?
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.
.
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!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.
'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.I don't think that defines archival.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?