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

[avb]

I’m confused. I’m pretty sure I enabled the analog only option for photrio.

 

[warden]

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.

I hear you and I'm not disagreeing. I assume all prints have had work done to them of some kind, whether film or digital. I use film but I don't think there is a wrong or inferior choice here, it's all good.

 

[jrhilton]

I can't comment on sales figures as I've not seen any official ones from the manufactures. But the only trend I have seen over the last few years that I would be willing to bet any money on being correct is a general move from digital compacts/DSLRs to smartphones. Obviously there are exceptions but most members of the public I see taking photos out and about are using their smartphones now.

So sorry I personally don't see daily evidence of a general film "revival" myself, even though as a film user I have obvious self interest in it being true!

I'm just happy to keep going with my pinhole images regardless of what others think simply because I enjoy the process.

 

[warden]

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.

I does seem a fair number of threads here devolve to reading comprehension insults.

To the OP - My apologies for contributing to the off topic.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Even as a new digital photographer back in 2014, I could see the difference between film and digital.

At first I bought a whole bunch of old manual focus lenses. I thought that newer lenses had too many elements and error correcting coatings.

I thought it was the camera. The sony produced superior images to the canon. Finally, a year and a half ago, I figured out that it was actually the 'sensor' or in this case digital. Any attempt to make an image look filmic created a result that was kitschy. Who would have thought that some cheap kodak gold would give better final results than you cold ever suss out of lightroom from a sony raw. Who would have thought that grain is a good thing?

Like it or not the trend is to digital. There will be a day when Velvia, like Aerochrome is $50 a roll and longer being produced. Fuji is winding down. Kodak is nearing a second bankruptcy. We film shooters don't like to admit it, but color photography is a few years away from getting very expensive. Then your choice will be digital or film B&W. So if you like any films, start stocking up the freezer with enough to film to last until digital reaches an acceptable level (10 years out). Enjoy RA-4 printing for what time it has left.

 

[iakustov]

Like it or not the trend is to digital. There will be a day when Velvia, like Aerochrome is $50 a roll and longer being produced. Fuji is winding down. Kodak is nearing a second bankruptcy. We film shooters don't like to admit it, but color photography is a few years away from getting very expensive. Then your choice will be digital or film B&W. So if you like any films, start stocking up the freezer with enough to film to last until digital reaches an acceptable level (10 years out). Enjoy RA-4 printing for what time it has left.

I think the trend is to smartphone cameras and instax film as already said here. I dont think colour print film will be dead in the nearest future, but slide film - maybe as there is one player at the moment unless Kodak is back into action.

 

[trendland]

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?

Kodak introduced Ektachrome somewere in the 80th the code name you perhaps know was EPN. Kodak has much succsess with first Ektachrome EPN. Some years after introducing this film Kodak reformulated Ektachrome (EPP).At this time Kodak stated they will not discontinue EPN because many professional photographers love the very special color characteristic. So they want offer both emulsions to further time paralel. (So long as there is a further demand to EPN - Kodak stated) Two versions of the same film with nearly identical characteristic? A paralel emulsion backing with E6 films ? Or was there a left over from finished EPN masterols ? At the time Kodak had produced new EPP ? On my oppinion (at this time) it was real smart from Kodak not to state : "We have a bigger amound of EPP stored - have some photograpers (and amateurs) still interist to use the older version - we are planning a sold out to special prices of old EPP"Berry that is a kind of real business and clever marketing (to state we let the EPN version in program - as long as many have interist and demand is there) or as long as it is sold out actualy? ???Some years later Kodak introduced the reformulated Ektachrome next generation (E100S/SW) the difference was not as much from my point. This Ektachrome version was indeed discontinued after Kodak had the next reformulation in their pipeline.This was the last (E100G/E100GX) but we should not forget E100VS !!!At this time Kodak offered also EPN and EPP.I have a katalogue from Kodak emulsions (2002 - 2003) there Kodak listed 14 different E6 films. Also the old EPN was in program? ???You may have thoughts like : "No wonder about Kodak went in bunkropcy later"But this issue indicates clear :KODAK STORED MASTEROLLS - and due to the beginning of massive losses in 2003/2004/2005 from sales this storage might have been longer as Kodak planned it.I was asking PE if he remembered a paralel emulsion backing of 3 Ektachrome versions.But he did not know.I bought EPN,EPP,E100G to the same time with fresh production dates.This films had phantastic characteristics - the difference of EPN and EPP is very smal but E100G/GX/VS are with much smaler grain. No storage failure,no production failure to EPN/EPP from my point but a realy greater advance from reformulation to E100 family I would like to state.So it must have been a real normal procedure to produce very low demand films within the 90th on higher scales.(The reason to let EPN/EPP and others to some years in sales)Remember just Kodak Ektachrome EPR this film was indeed produced paralel to others from my point. But also remember the Thungsten version EPY64 and its ISO 320 clone ! This films may have had a part of less then 1% of all Kodak E6 films (EPY and special the Ektachrome 320T) because they were too much expansive to amateurs and since 1997 (most of professional used digital beginning to this time) there was a very smaler demand from studio professionals.
Todays procedure would realy make sence in this way (to have higher scales in production from emulsion backing) But this can't indeed not come to a 15 years demand of a big production run (so as you stated) But let the scale of emulsion backing
be in the near to a 3 - 4 years demand. In case of Fuji E6 (and possible with some c41 films wich ran off) you just have to add a little more time (3,4,5 years??) because the sellings of films came more less than the original plans. (in 2009/2010/2012) for example.
And if we be allowed to count this estimated numbers we may come to results from the year of last emulsion backing to some low demand Fuji Films (2018 minus some years) : 2010 ?
A speculation of course - I realy see this point. But it would clearly analyse the actual Fuji Desaster from unlogical film discontinuation and heavy pricing of the last remainig Fuji Films !
So long as Fuji will give an evidence of the oposite - and Fuji seams to be not able to do this - just from my point.
Case solved from this explanation to you Berri ? Think about and just look at - what will happen next with Fuji Films.........with regards

 

[trendland]

I can't comment on sales figures as I've not seen any official ones from the manufactures. But the only trend I have seen over the last few years that I would be willing to bet any money on being correct is a general move from digital compacts/DSLRs to smartphones. Obviously there are exceptions but most members of the public I see taking photos out and about are using their smartphones now.

So sorry I personally don't see daily evidence of a general film "revival" myself, even though as a film user I have obvious self interest in it being true!

I'm just happy to keep going with my pinhole images regardless of what others think simply because I enjoy the process.

You are right because Nikon and Canon stated : Less sales from DSLR'S !But we all might be sure that some professional photographers will never use a cellphone for professional work....so some will EVER be remaining in their profesional workflow-standard.To the rest I would not care about as great. To me it is the real oposite of caring about - because they are definitive right (the cellphone photographers) - they all should better use their cellphones. ....

with regards

 

[Pioneer]

I’m confused. I’m pretty sure I enabled the analog only option for photrio.

Yeah. I think that the moderators should either move this entire thread to the hybrid section or post a HUGE warning in the title so those preferring analog content are not blindsided.

This entire thread began derailing around post 5 and the results have only gotten bloodier since then.

 

[trendland]

Even as a new digital photographer back in 2014, I could see the difference between film and digital.

At first I bought a whole bunch of old manual focus lenses. I thought that newer lenses had too many elements and error correcting coatings.

I thought it was the camera. The sony produced superior images to the canon. Finally, a year and a half ago, I figured out that it was actually the 'sensor' or in this case digital. Any attempt to make an image look filmic created a result that was kitschy. Who would have thought that some cheap kodak gold would give better final results than you cold ever suss out of lightroom from a sony raw. Who would have thought that grain is a good thing?

Like it or not the trend is to digital. There will be a day when Velvia, like Aerochrome is $50 a roll and longer being produced. Fuji is winding down. Kodak is nearing a second bankruptcy. We film shooters don't like to admit it, but color photography is a few years away from getting very expensive. Then your choice will be digital or film B&W. So if you like any films, start stocking up the freezer with enough to film to last until digital reaches an acceptable level (10 years out). Enjoy RA-4 printing for what time it has left.

The most difference in comparison is the standing within your own workflow.If your workflow is with film you better have to know what you are doing. There was never a way with professional work to state later : Sorry folks I just saw my developed film - lets Do it again because the results are real bad - I have not seen this earlier - it will not happen again.....

Such guys became right in the past.
They never got the chance to louse twice.I can see this with film work today. Directors are not moving in front of their actors any more and give instruction. (but behind the camera of course/outside the actual framing)
No - today they ALLWAYS are "SITTING" (they are obviousely not be able to "stand" during "their" 17th times "take" ???)
They are not looking to the actors they are permanently looking on their monitor screen.By the way Hitchkook was never looking through the camera while filming.He just asked the camera operator about the lens/angle and was knowing the framing then.with regards

 

[trendland]

I meant : Hitchcock of course.with regards

 

[trendland]

Yeah. I think that the moderators should either move this entire thread to the hybrid section or post a HUGE warning in the title so those preferring analog content are not blindsided.

This entire thread began derailing around post 5 and the results have only gotten bloodier since then.

Pioneer "bloodier" means "real bloody" ?Well I will not hope this treath will become a "bloody" one. .......(afraid off what will happen next)

with regards

 

[RPC]

Three days and numerous pages later and have not heard back from the OP. Beginning to look more and more like a troll.

 

[michr]

In regards to OPs question: It's because there isn't a revival, at least not one that justifies the hype. It's not that different from the supposed comeback that LP records have had. Film went from the dominant visual storage media to an afterthought in a generation. The fact that there's some still made is a good thing, but one shouldn't overstate the fact.

 

[RPC]

Since the use or non-use of digital is a part of the film-use equation, this thread should not have been started in the analog only forum.

 

[trendland]

In regards to OPs question: It's because there isn't a revival, at least not one that justifies the hype. It's not that different from the supposed comeback that LP records have had. Film went from the dominant visual storage media to an afterthought in a generation. The fact that there's some still made is a good thing, but one shouldn't overstate the fact.

There is definitive a revival - but we should become sure about the consequences - no one of these younger
Ladys (or Boys) 13 - 16 years old will buy a 35 mm camera and will give the new Samsung S9 (parents bought last week) into trash.
But if Kodachrome will come back (you are allowed to shot me now....) there might be lots of hipsters who will let there Iphone at home. (just to some weeks of hype) They may spent 50 bucks to a single roll (not enough for Kodak to bring it back) but these hipsters will love such expensive price just to show there Ebay cameras on the way to their job.
And they might be heros in their administration just to let their camera laying on an office table like here :

 

[faberryman]

Any attempt to make an image look filmic created a result that was kitschy.

If you want an image to look "filmic" shoot film. I've seen a lot of film images look kitschy all by themselves.

 

[MattKing]

I don't have a lot of problem with the parts of this discussion that refer to digital markets vs. film markets. Discussion of market forces isn't analogue, it isn't digital, it is economic.
I would point out though that whether or not there is a revival in the amount of interest in and use of film is a different question than whether or not there is a change in the number of different films being manufactured and sold.
Distribution issues alone make it very difficult to find and buy competitively priced colour films in Canada. While those issues affect interest, they don't determine it.

 

[trendland]

There is definitive a revival - but we should become sure about the consequences - no one of these younger
Ladys (or Boys) 13 - 16 years old will buy a 35 mm camera and will give the new Samsung S9 (parents bought last week) into trash.
But if Kodachrome will come back (you are allowed to shot me now....) there might be lots of hipsters who will let there Iphone at home. (just to some weeks of hype) They may spent 50 bucks to a single roll (not enough for Kodak to bring it back) but these hipsters will love such expensive price just to show there Ebay cameras on the way to their job.
And they might be heros in their administration just to let their camera laying on an office table like here :

Thats real revival !

with regards

 

[Pioneer]

View attachment 197222

Thats real revival !

with regards

Nah. Daydreaming is not evidence of any revival.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Back to Meyerowitz - some iconic content, but I've seen his work ever since he was learning to contact print and couldn't afford to do otherwise, and doubt he ever took a sharp photo in his life with 8X10. He wanted them somewhat soft-edged, and often stopped the lens down to f/90 to induce diffraction. So talking about what he thinks looking through a loupe is nonsense. But there are far worse technicians who have done well in the art world. I don't take their opinions either, esp if they never learned to print themselves.

 

[removed account4]

is meyerowitz a gofer too ?

 

[warden]

Back to Meyerowitz - some iconic content, but I've seen his work ever since he was learning to contact print and couldn't afford to do otherwise, and doubt he ever took a sharp photo in his life with 8X10. He wanted them somewhat soft-edged, and often stopped the lens down to f/90 to induce diffraction. So talking about what he thinks looking through a loupe is nonsense. But there are far worse technicians who have done well in the art world. I don't take their opinions either, esp if they never learned to print themselves.

He performed the test for a reason and came to his own conclusions. Sharpness was only one quality he was interested in. But never mind, we should all shoot what works for us. The fact that he had both an 8x10 and a Leica S made the comparison interesting for me, though I don't use either format.

Anyway, the podcast is easy to find for those interested. It's not about tech or film vs digital, which is one minute of a 1.5 hour interview. Mostly career retrospective stuff.

 

[1kgcoffee]

If you want an image to look "filmic" shoot film. I've seen a lot of film images look kitschy all by themselves.

This is why I shoot film. It's not so much cinematic as it as grain and curve and tone.

Digital is missing something that cannot be added in post, only in camera. Manufacturers haven't caught on. You can make a lousy negative, but its 100% film.

 

[faberryman]

You can make a lousy negative, but its 100% film.

And to some apparently that is all that is important.