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

[George Mann]

the digital image is more than good enough.

The masses will cling to any of the latest "conveniences" regardless of how inferior it is to its predecessors!

 

[MattKing]

1- How much Drama has Ilford actually gone through?

Receivership, rescue from the "grave" by some of their senior employees, bankruptcy of the former Swiss operation which operated separately after the receivership and relatively recent purchase by a venture capital firm which meant the exit of some of their senior management.
Also, a failed attempt to re-develop property and secure the future of their manufacturing capacity - they have seven years left on their lease.
Surprise loss of their USA distributor.
Otherwise, hardly any Drama at all .

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Film is over and out. Also Black and White. It is a niche product.
There is no revival.

Technically, Digital surpassed film quality already for years. Pixel size vs molecules size is a useless point.

The difference between film and digital is more complex. It is about presentation, how works are exhibited

But the most important aspect: size of film vs sensor. Stunningly analogue images are more than often large or mid format. Compare a midformat analogue image with a digital image on same size sensor, and see.

Imagine a 8x10 digital sensor. .....

not sure, my full-frame digital gives MF a run for the money. I'm liking d**** more and more.

 

[George Mann]

not sure, my full-frame digital gives MF a run for the money. I'm liking d**** more and more.

Another soul corrupted to the dark-side!

 

[FujiLove]

For MF and LF, with choices of Portra 160/400 and Ektar 100, honestly, what more do you need? Plenty more choices for 35mm..

Exactly. After you have colour balanced an optical print, it’s hard to tell the difference between most colour film. To my eye, there’s more difference between the remaining wet papers.

 

[Erik D. Herrmann Sr.]

...Film is clean in the way that mountain air is clean. Digital in clean like the filter air in a hospital.

That is probably the best analogy I've heard yet.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I do believe that film has weathered the Digital era. If I were a digital camera manufacturer, I would really be worried about the inroads made and being made by cell phones. I see people who are using cell phones every day as cameras, not leaving cell phones and turning to film photography AS AN INTERESTING HOBBY, which it is...........Regards!

Both digital and film have been passed by cell phones.

 

[Moopheus]

A mass-market for color film depends on the ready availability of processing services. Decent color labs are as rare as the proverbial hens' teeth now. If you want to DIY, b&w remains the easier option. It is possible to do color at home, many here do, but chemicals, paper, equipment, etc. for b&w are still much easier to procure. I still have my darkroom, but I've basically given up shooting color.

 

[iandvaag]

If and when color slides come back, I might start using that film again as I still have a screen and projector.

Just wanted to make sure you know that the most advanced, incredible slide films ARE available today. Great sharpness, fine grain, saturated colours, fantastic image stability. Provia 100F, Velvia 100, and Velvia 50 are some of the best slide films ever made. And we have the great fortune of being able to buy, shoot, process, and enjoy these films, made fresh from Fuji. If you wait for colour slides to "come back" rather than enjoy the colour slides we have available today, you may miss your chance!

 

[RPC]

Technically, Digital surpassed film quality already for years. Pixel size vs molecules size is a useless point.

The difference between film and digital is more complex. It is about presentation, how works are exhibited

But the most important aspect: size of film vs sensor. Stunningly analogue images are more than often large or mid format. Compare a midformat analogue image with a digital image on same size sensor, and see.

Imagine a 8x10 digital sensor. .....

Digital photographs look as good as they do only because of lots of camera software manipulation done to the sensor output, and often user and printer manipulation as well. Thus a digital image is to a degree a synthesized image. A negative itself requires no manipulation to produce a quality image--all recorded information is there already in high quality, and ready to print or scan. (Darkroom manipulation such as dodging and burning is due to the deficiencies of print materials, not negatives.) Do the same level of manipulation to a negative, even 35mm, that is done to the output of a sensor, and it would probably blow digital away. In any event a digital image ends up being converted to a compressed format, which degrades it.

 

[Sirius Glass]

It's only Fujifilm discontinuing colour film stocks.
Kodak last year had to increase the production rate of Portra, they are selling it like hot cakes.

No, as much as I would like that, Kodak film is not selling like hot cakes. Film is being sold, but the sales are nothing to get worked up about.

 

[Sirius Glass]

because, that's all it is, hype and wishful thinking.

+1

 

[Sirius Glass]

... it would seem that the noisy old amateurs don't like that.

Do you spread that on the ground for your gardens? Exactly how do you manufacture such manure?

 

[BMbikerider]

The plain and simple fact is this is almost a troll thread designed to inflame the digital/film argument. Perhaps they are thinking "There is little of interest of the TV, so can we start a verbal battle on Photrio?"

They are two separate mediums, I use both but because I can be bothered to get up off my butt and go and use film and be bothered to process it simply because I prefer the end result. I use digital when I need something quickly but not necessarily with quality. Some people like Bourbon Whiskey while some people prefer Scotch Whiskey but they are not at each others throats when one claims the other is better. Just enjoy what you like doing the most.

So how about going out there and using a few frames or filling a couple of memory cards, instead of sitting griping and hand wringing that one is better than the other. They are simply just different. Give it a rest children, I for one am getting very fed up with constant rehash of the same old point scoring, and frankly it getting a little bit boring.

You very rarely hear of artists having a go at the new upstart that uses silver based film do you.

 

[BrianShaw]

“Revival” is a very relative term. Very relative.

 

[BrianShaw]

“Revival” is a very relative term. Very relative.

... and so is “increased demand”.

 

[Lee Rust]

Mountain air vs filtered air... yes.

Spring water vs distilled water. Paper vs plastic. LP vs mp3. Pencil vs printer. Typewriter vs computer. Home cooked vs fast food. Printed book vs Kindle. Map vs GPS. Conversation vs Facebook. Quality vs quantity. Infinite vs finite.

The analog vs digital debate always triggers such strong reactions here. Perhaps because this divergence so directly reflects the broader conflicts in our daily lives.

 

[faberryman]

The analog vs digital debate always triggers such strong reactions here. Perhaps because this divergence so directly reflects the broader conflicts in our daily lives.

There is no conflict between film and digital. They are two separate things. Of course, some wish to stir up a conflict because of some psychological need. It is not a zero sum game.

 

[Colin Corneau]

Because even though film demand may be up, it is not up enough to cover the cost of manufacturing a wide variety of films. So film manufacturers have consolidated their offerings.

Any answer other than this is just self-indulgent blather. The case was closed with this second answer.

 

[RPC]

As we know, digital is what caused the decline of film use. So it makes sense that any dicussion of film sales increase or decline will likely bring in the subject of digital. But yes, we should try to avoid starting discussions of which is better.

 

[AgX]

I just read that Agfa has discontinued its Vista line of color print films.

Actually Agfa left the consumer market as early as 2004.
By selling the respective plants. The buyer for a short period sold remaining colour stock, for quite long remaing b&W stock. Production ended after few months.
What remained from the sold consumer section is a rebranding entity called AgfaPhoto.

 

[faberryman]

Actually Agfa left the consumer market as early as 2004.
By selling the respective plants. The buyer for a short period sold remaining colour stock, for quite long remaing b&W stock. Production ended after few months.
What remained from the sold consumer section is a rebranding entity called AgfaPhoto.

And Agfa Vista was rebranded Fuji film.

 

[AgX]

No. Not Agfa Vista, But AgfaPhoto Vista.

 

[AgX]

But the more important point is that Agfa left the market already in 2004.
There are hints that the decision even was taken even earlier.

All 3 big players had production facilities for smaller runs or could adjust them. But we only got reports of Kodak adapting.

 

[faberryman]

No. Not Agfa Vista, But AgfaPhoto Vista.

Correct, but all the left over rolls of Agfa Vista have long been sold. I was just using shorthand for the rebranded Fuji film which has just been discontinued.