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

[Armandillo]

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?

 

[faberryman]

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?

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.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Film revival exists only on few blogs and Internet forums. It is virtual hipsta bias.
Here is no apug anymore, think why.
In real world labs are closing and film cameras are discontinued. Real manufacturing not some DIY a.k.a. Crowd founding.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

Fewer people are shooting color.

 

[1kgcoffee]

Would not surprise me if Fuji is pulling out of film. But there are really only two choices these days - Kodak and Fuji. Agfa is just repackaged Fuji.

B&W is certainly alive and will be for a long time, due to ease of manufacture.

Fuji, believe it or not, may be acting out of altruism or respect for Kodak, much like Microsoft did to Apple after decimating them. They have so little to gain from film, and digital will eventually surpass it in terms of quality. By pulling out that leaves only Kodak as a manufacturer of c41/e6 film and gives them a fighting chance. No other company can produce color films of a similar quality. What we have left is a legacy of billions of dollars of infrastructure and R&D paid for in the hey-day of film. Even today, digital can't touch the natural beauty of medium format film.

By having fewer choices, manufacture becomes higher margin and makes film economical at current rates of consumption.

I will very much miss Fuji Films, and do not expect to see a return. The economy of scale is no longer there. The more prices rise, the less they sell. The less they sell the less they produce. If a smaller company were to produce Velvia, it would be 5x the price for an inferior product, and who would pay that?

Not to sound all doom and gloom. Digital will eventually catch up

 

[George Mann]

digital will eventually surpass it in terms of quality.

.

Digital is an artificial facsimile that can never truly match the ascetic quality of film!

 

[1kgcoffee]

Current technology is lacking in what makes film beautiful, but I believe manufacturers will catch on and eventually be able to make something on the level of film.

It would take a special kind of photo sensor, something like foveon, with higher bit depth, and a more unique shape (like pentagon grid) and software to translate that grid and layers into a very big digital file that has the tonal qualities of film. You can imagine how expensive this will be to produce.

 

[Sirius Glass]

.

digital will eventually surpass it in terms of quality.

Digital is an artificial facsimile that can never truly match the ascetic quality of film!

+1

Sure when the for pixels RGGB are smaller than grain molecules for starters. Would you please send a shipment of your drug of choice to me? Would I ingest it, smoke it or shoot up with it?

 

[Richard Man]

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

 

[1kgcoffee]

Sirius,
In the last 20 years, Compared to film, digital has advanced how much?

I agree that pixels are too uniform and mathematical. They lack the character of randomness. Film is clean in the way that mountain air is clean. Digital in clean like the filter air in a hospital.

It is currently possible to mimic film digitally, but not there yet. It still lacks the resolution as you rightly pointed out and will be a long long time until it matches that of medium format. But as software algorithms improve, sensor technology advances, we will eventually get there. How long is the question.

You don't even need small pixels to get there, just very creative math to approximate where those molecules would fall in between. Photographic AI.

I think I will always prefer the process of analog, printing especially, but digital has all the potential

Unfortunately this drug comes as suppository

Eg: Lets say you take the same shot on film and same on an image sensor. Do this tens of thousands of times in a controlled environment. Send it to a lab to be drum scanned to grain resolution and analyzed by photographic AI. It will learn how to make a sensor give you a portra look (or whatever you're after.)

Now use an advanced sensor with multiple layers and higher bit depth than the color dyes allow.

The file itself would be downsampled when displayed on something that uses pixels, when you print it would come out in full glory. Right now digital cameras are fisher price toys, but they will surpass film one day.

 

[Arklatexian]

Film revival exists only on few blogs and Internet forums. It is virtual hipsta bias.
Here is no apug anymore, think why.
In real world labs are closing and film cameras are discontinued. Real manufacturing not some DIY a.k.a. Crowd founding.

My answer is: in my experience, I get better color prints from my digital camera. Not so in black & white. If and when color slides come back, I might start using that film again as I still have a screen and projector. The main reason, though, I prefer shooting and looking at black and white. Evidently, I am not alone and that may account for your question..........Regards!

 

[Arklatexian]

+1

Sure when the for pixels RGGB are smaller than grain molecules for starters. Would you please send a shipment of your drug of choice to me? Would I ingest it, smoke it or shoot up with it?

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!

 

[Ko.Fe.]

My answer is: in my experience, I get better color prints from my digital camera. Not so in black & white. If and when color slides come back, I might start using that film again as I still have a screen and projector. The main reason, though, I prefer shooting and looking at black and white. Evidently, I am not alone and that may account for your question..........Regards!

I just experimented yesterday. I was trying to replicate darkroom print, by printing of some difficult negative on inkjet from scan. I failed as I often do. I'm just not into camera on the tripod, perfect exposure. Because BW film is very forgiving if printed under enlarger.

My digital camera is on long service for now. I have C-41 and old E-6 film to use. I can't say if color film scans printed on inkjet printer are better or worse to digital files printed on same printer. They are different.
All I could say - no inkjet print is close to analog color prints. Optical prints we used to get from regular labs. Ink, sublimative are not even close...

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Now use an advanced sensor with multiple layers and higher bit depth than the color dyes allow.
...

None of this matters. For 99.9% of the population that makes images (by cell phone or whatever), the digital image is more than good enough. They just want to show their baby pictures on Facebook or Instagram - nothing more.

Okay - that's not quite true: there are plenty of good landscape, portrait, urban, etc., photos made on 12 to 56 megapixel cameras that are more than good enough for those who like digital photography. We film enthusiasts are an extremely small niche.

This isn't a digital vs. film issue, really, because the important camera companies stopped making film cameras over 10 years ago. We have fewer film types to choose from simply because demand is dwindling.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

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.

 

[Minoltafan2904]

None of this matters. For 99.9% of the population that makes images (by cell phone or whatever), the digital image is more than good enough. They just want to show their baby pictures on Facebook or Instagram - nothing more.

Okay - that's not quite true: there are plenty of good landscape, portrait, urban, etc., photos made on 12 to 56 megapixel cameras that are more than good enough for those who like digital photography. We film enthusiasts are an extremely small niche.

This isn't a digital vs. film issue, really, because the important camera companies stopped making film cameras over 10 years ago. We have fewer film types to choose from simply because demand is dwindling.

Demand of film is not dwindling.
Both Kodak and Iford have reported stable growth of film sales over the last 2-3 years.
If demand was dwindling, why would Kodak be resurrecting their colour reversal line and bringing back P3200 and talking about bringing back other discontinued film stocks?

 

[RalphLambrecht]

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?

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

 

[RattyMouse]

Kodak last year had to increase the production rate of Portra, they are selling it like hot cakes.

You have a source for this "fact"?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Demand of film is not dwindling.
Both Kodak and Iford have reported stable growth of film sales over the last 2-3 years.
If demand was dwindling, why would Kodak be resurrecting their colour reversal line and bringing back P3200 and talking about bringing back other discontinued film stocks?

Because a lot of people, especially the digital native generation, are increasingly switching/ switching back to film for creative/ professional work & it would seem that the noisy old amateurs don't like that.

 

[Ivo]

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. .....

 

[Theo Sulphate]

..
Both Kodak and Iford have reported stable growth of film sales over the last 2-3 years.
If demand was dwindling, why would Kodak be resurrecting their colour reversal line and bringing back P3200 and talking about bringing back other discontinued film stocks?

You have a point - and for the short term this is true. The next 5 to 10 years will show which way demand is going. I'm just sad to see the loss of films like HIE and several Fuji films.

Because a lot of people, especially the digital native generation, are increasingly switching/ switching back to film for creative/ professional work & it would seem that the noisy old amateurs don't like that.

Why wouldn't "old amateurs" like it, though? It's all for the best. I'd love to see an increase in film demand from digital shooters or newcomers to photography - because that would actually allow more and better films to be developed or revived.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Why wouldn't "old amateurs" like it, though? It's all for the best. I'd love to see an increase in film demand from digital shooters or newcomers to photography - because that would actually allow more and better films to be developed or revived.

It's puzzling to me too! I think there's a certain kind of person who enjoys constructing some sort of persecution complex & making a huge noise about how under threat they are, & when it turns out not to be the situation, there's a major case of sour grapes. I've seen it both on forums & in real life. It's as if people have forgotten that outwith the atypical 1990's, there were essentially 2-3 professional BW & 2-3 professional colour films from each of the major manufacturers (excluding materials for industrial/ prepress markets etc).

Regarding the Fuji films, I think a lot also has to do with the popularity of NPH (amongst those who choose Fuji over Kodak) run through a Frontier/ Noritsu in 135/ 120 by the wedding/ social market. It's also a much more 'filmic' film than Pro160NS which can look pretty sterile if inverted & corrected properly.

 

[TheGreatGasMaskMan]

This has got t be a black and white thing simply because
1- How much Drama has Ilford actually gone through?
2- you don't see people actively learning color development/ nearly as many sites and forums promoting diy color development (though I'm not saying there are none).

 

[George Mann]

Eg: Lets say you take the same shot on film and same on an image sensor. Do this tens of thousands of times in a controlled environment. Send it to a lab to be drum scanned to grain resolution and analyzed by photographic AI. It will learn how to make a sensor give you a portra look (or whatever you're after.)

No scanner is currently capable of capturing what film actually looks like!

 

[George Mann]

I get better color prints from my digital camera.

You can expect that from digital prints of film.