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?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
'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.
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.This is sheer ignorance!
100 years and still be in reasonable shape whatever that may be.
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.
I don't know about the sales but the perception on the streets is film is cool.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Bracketing does not guarantee a shot is obtained, it merely increases the odds.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?