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

[Berri]

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

can't be bothered to read it all, sorry, but I am sure that you cannot produce emulsion today and finish it in 15 years and hoping for it to not be already expired with some sort of serious changes in the characteristics. Also, do you have any real fact to support your thesis?

 

[RPC]

'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.

My understanding of "archival" from reading the photographic literature over the years for prints and negatives is at least 100 years, sometimes as much as 500. Now, apparently thanks to digital, things seem to be changing, and we are seeing figures as low as 20 years!

 

[warden]

This is sheer ignorance!

Joel Meyerowitz was on The Candid Frame podcast yesterday talking about actual output of digital cameras. Leica S vs his 8x10 film camera, each printed to 60" size, and he used a loupe to study color, detail, hi lights, tones, etc on the prints. No difference.

I like film, and will continue using it. But digital is every bit as good, and just as challenging to use.

 

[Willyekerslike]

100 years and still be in reasonable shape whatever that may be.

The auction sites often quoted, " great condition for its age", and yes whatever that might be mean......

 

[Willyekerslike]

do you have any real fact to support your thesis?

Does a thesis need facts to support it? I thought a thesis was propersition yet to be proved or disproved.

 

[Berri]

Does a thesis need facts to support it? I thought a thesis was propersition yet to be proved or disproved.

what a bloody pedantic lecture!

 

[Cholentpot]

I'm late to this argument. Mind if I step in?

My local photography joint is constantly selling out of Portra. When I started a'ways back in ought 13 I was harvesting expired film from local shops. These days that does not exist. The price of cameras has skyrocketed from the lows they were at, I see more SLRs on the street than I have for a long long time. Youngsters and pre-millennials wear shooting film like a badge of pride.

I don't know about the sales but the perception on the streets is film is cool.

Also, I shoot both film and digital and like 'em both. Goal for me is to make an image.

 

[RattyMouse]

I don't know about the sales but the perception on the streets is film is cool.

I'm in Kyoto right now, on a visit solely devoted to photography. I was reloading my TX-1 film camera in one of the temple's when I overheard someone laughing loudly after saying, "look, that guy still shoots film!". I didnt raise my head to make eye contact as I was right in the middle of reloading. Damn TX-1 is very picky about how the film is loaded. Not that I cared what this tourist thought of me. He can enjoy his superior digital camera. I hardly care.

 

[RattyMouse]

Joel Meyerowitz was on The Candid Frame podcast yesterday talking about actual output of digital cameras. Leica S vs his 8x10 film camera, each printed to 60" size, and he used a loupe to study color, detail, hi lights, tones, etc on the prints. No difference.

I like film, and will continue using it. But digital is every bit as good, and just as challenging to use.

Challenging? Hardly. You get instant feedback and know immediately if you need to reshoot. Film does not give you that. You MUST get it right on your own. No feedback.

Getting shots with a digital camera is far easier. Shoot, chimp, adjust, shoot, chimp, adjust..repeat until you are happy.

When I visit far away lands, I shoot my film cameras. If I dont get the shot right, those images are lost forever, unless i return again for another try.

 

[warden]

Challenging? Hardly. You get instant feedback and know immediately if you need to reshoot. Film does not give you that. You MUST get it right on your own. No feedback.

Getting shots with a digital camera is far easier. Shoot, chimp, adjust, shoot, chimp, adjust..repeat until you are happy.

When I visit far away lands, I shoot my film cameras. If I dont get the shot right, those images are lost forever, unless i return again for another try.

Use film if you like. Use digital if you like. They're different and equally challenging.

When it matters and it has to be right and you can't go back, chimp digital if you have that luxury. When it matters and it has to be right and you can't go back, bracket film if you have that luxury. It ain't rocket science.

 

[RPC]

Joel Meyerowitz was on The Candid Frame podcast yesterday talking about actual output of digital cameras. Leica S vs his 8x10 film camera, each printed to 60" size, and he used a loupe to study color, detail, hi lights, tones, etc on the prints. No difference.

It all means nothing without knowing all the details about how the comparisons were made. There are many factors that can determine the results, including bias.

 

[RattyMouse]

Use film if you like. Use digital if you like. They're different and equally challenging.

When it matters and it has to be right and you can't go back, chimp digital if you have that luxury. When it matters and it has to be right and you can't go back, bracket film if you have that luxury. It ain't rocket science.

Bracketing does not guarantee a shot is obtained, it merely increases the odds.

 

[warden]

It all means nothing without knowing all the details about how the comparisons were made. There are many factors that can determine the results, including bias.

I've seen his prints in person, up close. His opinion as a longstanding professional who has worked, published, written and taught, means something to me. I don't need the fine details of his testing approach to trust his opinion on the matter; I think if I ever need to print huge (however unlikely), an 8x10 film negative or giant digital file will work equally well.

 

[warden]

Bracketing does not guarantee a shot is obtained, it merely increases the odds.

Use what you like. I use film. But I'm not pretending that it's better than digital, or that I'm better or smarter or more careful just because I use film.

 

[RPC]

I've seen his prints in person, up close. His opinion as a longstanding professional who has worked, published, written and taught, means something to me. I don't need the fine details of his testing approach to trust his opinion on the matter; I think if I ever need to print huge (however unlikely), an 8x10 film negative or giant digital file will work equally well.

His prints may look good, but what level of digital manipulation is done to make them look that way? Professionals will do what it takes to produce a good looking image just like anybody else, and this alone makes comparisons questionable.

 

[RattyMouse]

Use what you like. I use film. But I'm not pretending that it's better than digital, or that I'm better or smarter or more careful just because I use film.

You need to read much more carefully. No where did I or anyone write that a person who shoots film is better or smarter. That is something you have conjured up on your own, for what reason, I cannot say. I wrote about a process, not about myself (except as part of that process; no comment made on skill), yourself, or any person.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am good enough photographer to know when the shutter fires whether or not I got the photograph. On the other hand I have tried chippin', I have taken courses chippin', I have even taken remedial courses in chimpin' and I still cannot get the hang of it. I will just have to shoot film and live with the fact that I know whether or not I got the photograph.

 

[Pioneer]

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?

There are almost certainly many answers to this question, all of which probably have some bearing on your original question.

First, color film (transparency or negative), is devilishly difficult to produce and costs more to make, much more so than black and white. A shrinking market for all types of film (color and black and white) does not allow for a reasonable rate of return on the investment for making that film. Therefore it is easy to make a decision to discontinue it. Once it is discontinued all sorts of hurdles must be overcome to start back up again.

One tactic for improving return on the investment in making color films is to consolidate those films and continue to make only those films that are likely to be most popular, therefore selling the best. All remaining color film manufacturers appear to have used this method of improving profits.

The support channels for color film are also declining. Labs that can be relied upon to develop that film are closing much more frequently then they seem to open, and those that remain are basically relying on internet channels to enlarge their markets. This also holds true for distribution for the film itself. There are very few channels left to purchase color film locally and most successful distributors are using the internet to enlarge their market base. As a side note though I find it easier to purchase consumer color film locally than it is to purchase black and white film.

Obviously, digital has been, and still is, the great elephant in the room that is causing such destruction to the color film markets. Since digital is almost entirely color based it would have a greater affect on the color film market than the black and white market.

I am sure there are many, many other influences explaining a possible decline in color film even when there is an overall revival in film use itself that I haven't even begun to consider.

Of course we have no real idea if color film is actually in decline. It may be that the manufacturers have been successful in their consolidation attempts and there actually is an increase in color film production and sales even while the total number of films available seems to be in decline.

Of course all of this really has no bearing on the film/digital wars that continue to be waged in this thread.

Carry on.

 

[iakustov]

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.

So, should we start thinking of stocking up Fuji's slide films?

 

[RattyMouse]

So, should we start thinking of stocking up Fuji's slide films?

If slide is your thing, then yes. Fujifilm has zero commitment to any film except for INSTAX. They do not promote or market their film in anyway. Fujifilm operates their film business in the most nonsensical way.

Get it while you can.

 

[Nodda Duma]

This thread derailed faster than a bullet train. Photrio, pull yourself together!


A big market share of Fuji's film sales is in Asia. Asia has been slower to adopt digital imaging for a variety of reasons, but is finishing up that transition. As Asia continues to go digital, shrinking film sales will impact Fuji more than other producers...similar to (but not as hard as) the digital cliff 15 years ago hit the western market serves by Kodak, Agfa, etc., harder than Fuji.

The real situation is obviously more nuanced, but that's the gist of why Fuji is shrinking their offering while Kodak expands its lines. I expect the Asian market to echo what the US market went through: film bottoms out then rebounds slightly as an Asian film niche is established.

 

[RattyMouse]

This thread derailed faster than a bullet train. Photrio, pull yourself together!


A big market share of Fuji's film sales is in Asia. Asia has been slower to adopt digital imaging for a variety of reasons, but is finishing up that transition. As Asia continues to go digital, shrinking film sales will impact Fuji more than other producers...similar to (but not as hard as) the digital cliff 15 years ago hit the western market serves by Kodak, Agfa, etc., harder than Fuji.

The real situation is obviously more nuanced, but that's the gist of why Fuji is shrinking their offering while Kodak expands its lines. I expect the Asian market to echo what the US market went through: film bottoms out then rebounds slightly as an Asian film niche is established.

I dont know what Asia you are talking about but I've lived there for 7 years and have seen more digital cameras there, by far, than back in the US. Japan, China, Korea, absolutely stuffed to the gills with digital cameras.

 

[removed account4]

Challenging? Hardly. You get instant feedback and know immediately if you need to reshoot. Film does not give you that. You MUST get it right on your own. No feedback.

Getting shots with a digital camera is far easier. Shoot, chimp, adjust, shoot, chimp, adjust..repeat until you are happy.

When I visit far away lands, I shoot my film cameras. If I dont get the shot right, those images are lost forever, unless i return again for another try.

Bracketing does not guarantee a shot is obtained, it merely increases the odds.

obviously you have never seen a filmie using a long roll with a winder and bracketing like mad ...
plenty of ways to miss a kodak moment whether it is film or the other thing kodak invented.

 

[Cholentpot]

I am good enough photographer to know when the shutter fires whether or not I got the photograph. On the other hand I have tried chippin', I have taken courses chippin', I have even taken remedial courses in chimpin' and I still cannot get the hang of it. I will just have to shoot film and live with the fact that I know whether or not I got the photograph.

I learned on film and transitioned to digital. Chimping is nice indoors when using a flash, useless when it's to bright outside to use the screen. Histograming is nice too.

However, I know when I got the shot as soon as that shutter is done. I don't NEED autofocus, metering, image review, etc and etc, but it sure is nice.

 

[removed account4]

OP

maybe the reson why fewer color films are available is because fewer people are using color film
and the manufacturers don't want to over saturate the market and have a million miles of unexposed film
they never made $$ off of.