Worried about 120 film being discontinued?

[destroya]

Im not worried about 120 film. I think that 35mm film will go before 120. The way I look at it, size does matter. speaking in generalities, the more serious film shooters shoot larger size films. I would assume if we took a survey, 120 would be just as popular as 4x5. The gauge I use is a brief look at cost. 35mm film costs a lot more than 120 or sheet film when looking at film area cost. now 35mm does have more costs when yo factor in the cassette, but 120 backing paper, which was mentioned before, is a large cost also. a pro pack of 35mm slide film is about $50-60 a 120 pro pack about $40. so they keep raising cost to make sure they make a little or break even (just an assumption on my part). once they start loosing money they can raise prices or stop producing.

Again, I would think that more serious film shooters own or shoot 120 film in addition to other formats. the 35mm film shooters more than likely went to digital. Long live 120

 

[Ai Print]

Sirius
I do understand.
I just think you are delaying the inevitable.
If a film is discontinued, then why carry on using it instead of finding a replacement that is still in production and support the manufacturer this way?
As an example, I've used a ton of Kodak EBX. When that one was axed together with all other E6 Kodak films, I went to find a replacement as soon the discontinuation notice was put up. In fact, here in the UK all remains of that film were sold out in a week or 2 even though the price had almost doubled since it was announced its axing.
So, what's the point of holding to a film that is no longer in production?
Every time you use it, it is a reminder that you have one less roll and that one day there will be not one left.
For me it is just painful.
I still have a roll of EBX left. It is in a drawer just as a reminder of what Kodak used to be.

Actually, I don't think you do understand.
By your logic, why go on living if you are delaying the inevitable day that you die?

My mother is a professional oil painter, while she still uses current offerings of oil paints, she also has some that are tough to find as they are no longer made, cadmium yellow or something like that. She likes having the options for now because it helps her to keep balance in life as an artist. The paints do not sit in a drawer as some form of self torture as she remembers how the good ol' days used to be.

I have a fair amount of films in deep freeze that are no longer made, Agfa APX25, Techpan, etc. And I pull them out like fine wines for a special occasion or the "Seal Team" for a special assignment. It feels good to be able to do that because it is good. It is not at all saddening, it is actually inspiring. And like Roger has said, some films can not be replaced. In the case of Fuji Provia 400X, I had never used it, so what do I do? I buy 75 rolls in 35mm, book my flight to Cuba for this May and will shoot all of it there, I ran a test roll of it not long ago and get it back this week, will base exposures and filtration off of that. Then once it is gone, I will have those wonderful slides to work from.

The film I fear losing the most is Kodak TMY-2 in 35mm, 120 and 4x5 formats. There simply is no replacement for this film, it is utterly spectacular bringing lenses like Carl Zeiss and Leica to their knees....at ISO 800. So you had better believe that if it ever gets nixed, I will be buying at least $6,000-$10,000 worth to keep using it for awhile.

We are all different and none of us can control what films get axed. So some of us keep a balance of keeping a stash of no longer made films along with current ones in the freezer and still buy current ones as needed keeping the flow of materials moving right along.

 

[Ai Print]

Again, I would think that more serious film shooters own or shoot 120 film in addition to other formats. the 35mm film shooters more than likely went to digital. Long live 120

I don't think it really works like that.

I know a lot of film shooters and quite a fair number of them use 35mm. Most of the serious shooters I know are just serious shooters period, not serious film shooters, serious digital shooters. They are primarily focused on the work they are producing, the story they are illustrating, the body of fine art they are creating.

I would not underestimate how popular 35mm is.

 

[Alan Gales]

Kodak Film profitability with the motion picture industry:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/help-star-wars-kodak-ceo-848593

 

[Paul Howell]

Although format and size has some bearing on what will be offered, such as discontinuing of 220 or limited emulsions for 6X9 sheet film, all formats are cut from a master roll, as long as there is market for 120, large format or 35mm there will be supply. The larger issue is color vs black and white. There are only color folks left, Fuji and Kodak, maybe Ferrina will come on line maybe not. I will admit that I do more digital for color work than I use to.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius
I do understand.
I just think you are delaying the inevitable.
If a film is discontinued, then why carry on using it instead of finding a replacement that is still in production and support the manufacturer this way?
As an example, I've used a ton of Kodak EBX. When that one was axed together with all other E6 Kodak films, I went to find a replacement as soon the discontinuation notice was put up. In fact, here in the UK all remains of that film were sold out in a week or 2 even though the price had almost doubled since it was announced its axing.
So, what's the point of holding to a film that is no longer in production?
Every time you use it, it is a reminder that you have one less roll and that one day there will be not one left.
For me it is just painful.
I still have a roll of EBX left. It is in a drawer just as a reminder of what Kodak used to be.

A few examples:

Kodak Portra Vivid Color for more color saturation and has good skin tones, no longer available and there is no substitute but I have a stockpile
Kodak Portra Ultra Color for the strongest color saturation and has good skin tones which I use for the red rock country, no longer available and there is no substitute but I have a stockpile
Kodak Tri-X 320 for portraits is no long available and there is no substitute but I have a stockpile
​

 

[Roger Cole]

How about Ektar 100 as a replacement for Portra Ultra Color? Ektar seems to me the most saturated C41 film made today.

It isn't the old Agfa Ultra 50, but it's very saturated (and more accurate than Ultra 50 was.)

For that matter that Ultra 50 and Portrait 160 were two films I was sad to lose for which there were no substitutes at the time. Ektar 100 comes closest to replacing Ultra 50 but not quite (google images on Ultra 50 if you never used that film) but there is still nothing with the pastel renderings of the Portrait 160.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ektar might not be perfect, but it is far better balanced than any previous analogous color neg film I can think of, which basically saturated
certain hues but couldn't balance the others at the same time. In other words, properly exposed and printed, Ektar is a realistic substitute for
the kind of applications chrome film was traditionally used for. No, you can't simply slap it on a light box to evaluate your results like a chrome; and this fact in itself has led a number of people to disparage the film for what was really the fault of a mediocre scan or improper technique in the first place. But if you understand it, it can get the job done. And when you want a more traditional softer color neg, there are the companion Portra products. The cost of these in sheet film, esp 8x10 is getting a bit obscene; but one learns to shoot more circumspectly under such cost restrictions. How many damn negs do you need anyway? You can only print so many of them. For people with a machine gun mentality, either go digital or rob a bank.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Ektar has color saturation as does Portra Ultra Color, but Portra Ultra Color is a professional film and therefore will keep the skin tones even with the color saturation. Ektar is not so great for skin color; I would not want to use Ektar for wedding photographs.

 

[Lachlan Young]

My own experiences with Ektar would tend to agree with Drew's comments - remarkably neutral, yet with beautiful saturation. It's perfectly capable of great skin tones if properly handled - most of the nonsense about it seems to be propagated by people whose sole experience of Ektar is via a poorly controlled sRGB minilab scan.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Ektar is not the best film for taking high school year book pictures of kids with zits. No. But the problem with traditional color neg films that
are engineered with an emphasis on "pleasing skintones" is that they tend to crash any related hue into a similar look. I personally don't care for landscape subjects that where all the tans and brown and various yellows all end up pumpkin-colored, or all the greens a poison cyan. Of course, this is a bit of hyperbole; but it certainly wasn't back in the old Vericolor studio days, when such films did deliver superb skin colors, but very little else came out realistic. Any damn color film can back a marketing brochure of seemingly saturated color like a picture of crayons or lipstick tubes. Try mixing in some subtle greiges, greens, etc in the same shot and see what happens! Ektar can do it well if you understand it. It's one distinct weakness is getting all the cyan out of the blue. But that can be discussed too. But in portrait work for mixed lighting, I do personally prefer Portra 400. It's still just a bit too muddy for my idea of an ideal landscape film, however.

 

[benjiboy]

You die if you worry, and you die if you don't.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Hmmm. If it's not rainy like crazy on the weekend I'll be out with a fifty year old camera, then end up printing something on a fifty year old
enlarger, both of which were so well made they could easily last another century. Or I could go modern and digital, and have to replace all
my gear and software every few years. Yeah, we might all get wiped out by a big asteroid impact. Film has had its own asteroid impact
already, but fortunately it wasn't an actual "extinction event". The consumer electronics industry, by comparison, seems to have repeatedly
scheduled extinction events. Just keep that in the back of your mind. Maybe color film will die, but so will I, so I want to enjoy while I'm
still around !

 

[sagai]

We can be okay by y2020

 

[Ric Trexell]

What will kill film.

What will really kill film is if they put a button on all digitals that says 'looks like film'. Then there will be settings for Vericolor, Kodachrome, E-6, Polaroid and every type of film you can think of. Yes, you can do that with some of the photo softwares out there, but this will be right on the camera. Then there will be no need for film. Also, instead of seeing your digital film right away, the camera will not allow you to see it for two weeks. A notice will pop up that says, your digital picture was sent to a major film developer in Kansas and will arrive in 10-14 days. Eventually, there will be little film because while many on here say that there are thousands of cameras that take film, they will not last forever sitting on the shelf. So the cameras that are being used today are the ones that will last the longest. The ones on the shelf will set up due to their oils turning to varnish. The cost of film and developing is making this retired guy go to digital. I have a few rolls in the fridge of 35mm Fuji E-6 and it costs $10+ to develop them. A memory chip costs $17 but holds 750+ .jpgs and hundreds of RAW. The bad ones get deleted and the good ones go to the computer. When my Minolta dies, that will be the end of film for me most likely. It is not a quality thing for me, just whether or not I want to be into photography.

 

[NedL]

What will really kill film is if they put a button on all digitals that says 'looks like film'.

My x100 has three settings: "provia", "astia" and "velvia". If I'm honest with myself, I admit that gimmick was a factor in me deciding to buy that camera. It's perpetually set on "astia".

....A notice will pop up that says, your digital picture was sent to a major film developer in Kansas and will arrive in 10-14 days.

That's pretty funny! Well today was day 11, and I was hoping to see my c-41 from Kansas, but looks like it will be tomorrow or Monday.


If film gets killed off I'll happily make paper negatives and prints, even if I have to make my own paper. I like making prints too much to stop.

 

[sagai]

I do not know if it is only me, I have all the negs from the 70ies-80ies ready to be scanned or developed, I barely have however all the digital image files from the 90ies.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Personally, I do worry that 120 film will cease to be produced- like 220 has.

I invested in two Hasselblad bodies and lenses, and it will be a shame to not be able to shoot 120.

Just the craziness about the pricing of film backs ($50 for A24 and $250 for A12) makes me wonder.

A Hasselblad Digital back is like $10k.. But that's very steep.

not to worry;120 has been around for 100 years and the used market is flooded with 120 cameras.If you want to sell film these days,you have to offer it in 120.

 

[railwayman3]

I do not know if it is only me, I have all the negs from the 70ies-80ies ready to be scanned or developed, I barely have however all the digital image files from the 90ies.

Not just you. I also have my negs and slides back to the 1970's, together with my late Father's back to the 1950's, and quite often pull out one or two of the better ones to scan and print, or darkroom print. My interest is in trying to produce a small number of nice pictures to the best of my ability, usually up to A4-ish size, which hopefully satisfy me artistically and technically, perhaps in the way the one of my wife's watercolor pictures pleases her.

Whereas few of my digital image files, other than family pics or other shots taken for specific purposes, ever get printed out, and, while I have most of them from around 2000 onwards, we rarely look at them unless it is to specifically check something from a holiday or day trip. So may digital is more of an inexpensive and simple way of recording memories than a way of producing "artistic" pictures....IDK?

Not saying that film or digital is intrinsically "best", just that they're not the same thing...perhaps as different as photography and painting. So hopefully 120 film (and watercolor paints and brushes!) will not be discontinued !

 

[rdihughes]

I photograph exclusively using 220 black/white film - made by rolling my own; I purchase unperforated 70mm HP5+ emulsion rolls from the Ilford ULF run and reduce the width from 70mm to 61mm using a home made slitter. Backing paper can also be got via the ULF run; alternately, you may reuse 120 backing paper by removing the length of backing paper that covers the actual 120 film emulsion length (about 34 inches) thus leaving you with a "header" length and a "trailer" length for your 220 roll; fasten these to about 68 inches of film emulsion with thin adhesive tape and roll onto a 120 spool; start mark on 120 backing paper also good for 220 roll. With a bit of practice the whole process takes less than five minutes per 220 roll. Far outweighs the disadvantage of lugging twice as many 120 backs around (for me at least).

Other emulsions in 70mm perforated/unperforated format are available for example from Maco direct and Rollei and of course there is always e-bay.

Best wishes,

Richard Hughes.

 

[digital&film]

I came across this website: http://camerafilmphoto.com/ and it seems to be the type of film seller we need in the states. The price for Rollei film is 1/2 the price of B&H, which is usually good. Plus- the bundles come with Japan Camera Hunter film holders included.

 

[Old-N-Feeble]

^^^ Excellent... 15 rolls of Rollei Retro 80s will cost me US$35 less than buying through B&H even with free B&H shipping.

 

[Alan Gales]

What will really kill film is if they put a button on all digitals that says 'looks like film'. Then there will be settings for Vericolor, Kodachrome, E-6, Polaroid and every type of film you can think of. Yes, you can do that with some of the photo softwares out there, but this will be right on the camera. Then there will be no need for film. Also, instead of seeing your digital film right away, the camera will not allow you to see it for two weeks. A notice will pop up that says, your digital picture was sent to a major film developer in Kansas and will arrive in 10-14 days. Eventually, there will be little film because while many on here say that there are thousands of cameras that take film, they will not last forever sitting on the shelf. So the cameras that are being used today are the ones that will last the longest. The ones on the shelf will set up due to their oils turning to varnish. The cost of film and developing is making this retired guy go to digital. I have a few rolls in the fridge of 35mm Fuji E-6 and it costs $10+ to develop them. A memory chip costs $17 but holds 750+ .jpgs and hundreds of RAW. The bad ones get deleted and the good ones go to the computer. When my Minolta dies, that will be the end of film for me most likely. It is not a quality thing for me, just whether or not I want to be into photography.

I own a Fujifilm X100s. It has film simulation settings. I can set it for Provia, Velvia and Astia. The new X100t has a setting that is supposed to look like Kodachrome.

The settings are nice and all but digital does not look like film.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The next model will have an automated faux photographer program installed as well - then you will also become obsolete!

 

[macfred]

The settings are nice and all but digital does not look like film.

Amen !!