Another film is dying article... really??

[kdemas]

Let me ask...doesn't the mass media tire of this type of story? I must have seen this same article written about 30 times.

Anyway, one interesting stat from this article...786 million rolls of film sold in the US in 2000, 20 some million today. That's an epic volume drop. Given that stat I'm glad we still have the film selection we do.

I'm glad many of us make up part of that 20 million :)

http://beta.news.yahoo.com/much-longer-photographic-film-hold-162516670.html

[zauhar]

In fairness , the article does note that interest in film is actually increasing, particularly among young people.

Randy

[dallard]

The crux of that article was that since Kodak isn't doing well, neither is film (even though their film division is still making a profit).
It's kind of funny since there was another article linked to on the forum recently that said film is doing great because Ilford is seeing increases in profit.

[tlitody]

As long as Kodak have to make film for the movie industry your 35mm kodak film for cameras will be available. As soon as the movie industry goess 100% digital capture you can kiss kodak film goodbye.

I was recently asked for advice by someone wanting a DSLR. They know nothing about photography. So give a manual for a Nikon D7000 to someone starting out in photography and how much sense will they make of it? Give them a manual for Zeiss Ikon and how easy will that be for them? It's not surprising that young people like film.
Film cameras vs digital cameras are analogous to the difference between calculators and computers with operting systems. Everyone can cope with a calculator to do simple arithmetic but not everyone can program a computer to do simple arithemetic.
The poll on whats you career background showed that a large percentage of people here are technical. That's fine for us because we are into all this techno stuff but a lot of people aren't so why complicate it for them with computers masquerading as cameras.

[Keith]

If Ilford is doing so well I'd like to know why Freestyle still have their $4.59 two-packs of HP5+ listed and why so much of this got dumped into the US market at a fraction of the price the poor sods in Europe have to pay for it? It's been available at Freestyle for two months now so either it's not selling as well as they'd hoped or they literally bought 'tons' of the stuff!

As for Kodak ... I think when they do eventually get out of film everyone will breathe a sigh of relief and the rest of the manufacturers can get on with it and decide whether or not it's worth it to keep catering to a niche market while trying to keep your prices acceptable.

[andredossantos]

Isn't it more likely Kodak will sell it's film unit? Then, whoever buys it will determine the fate of the emulsions.

The "death" of film isn't the producers all of a sudden leaving the market, it's that the price will increas to a point where most won't find it worth it anymore to shoot a whole lot of it. In the end there will probably be a handful of smal boutique companies that cater to those who can afford to still shoot and develop the stuff.

[Steve Bellayr]

Reading an article like that periodically does quell the GAS problem for old film cameras and provides me more time to save for that M9, which I probably will never buy, anyway.

[mrisney]

Regal Cinema expects to have practically all of its theatres converted to digital cinema by the end of 2012 http://tinyurl.com/regal-cinema-going-digital

When this happens, I think it's over for Kodak emulsions. So there's your time line.

[David Murphy]

I suppose those responsible for the latest run on Classic Leica cameras and lenses (driving prices through the roof) are not reading these articles. I can't believe all this gear just sits in a display case somewhere.

[LeicaFan]

Regal Cinema expects to have practically all of its theatres converted to digital cinema by the end of 2012 http://tinyurl.com/regal-cinema-going-digital

When this happens, I think it's over for Kodak emulsions. So there's your time line.

Well, I guess I better start stockpiling some film. :)

[tlitody]

Regal Cinema expects to have practically all of its theatres converted to digital cinema by the end of 2012 http://tinyurl.com/regal-cinema-going-digital

When this happens, I think it's over for Kodak emulsions. So there's your time line.

Well when kodak film goes then its good news for Ilford. And Ilford bought Kentmere to gain the Kentmere distribution network in the US. So it is already preparing the way for increased US sales.
It's not all bad news you know. And Fuji say they will be the last to stop producing film. i.e. they are in it to the end. So your colour film supplies will be safe for a good long while yet.

As the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Universe says on its cover: DON'T PANIC

p.s. I rekon it stole that line from Corporal Jones.

[Colin Corneau]

Isn't it more likely Kodak will sell it's film unit? Then, whoever buys it will determine the fate of the emulsions.


Not necessarily. Film production expertise doesn't transport well -- it takes staff as well as machines and that's assuming Kodak will ever sell its hard-won knowledge and facilities.

It's not like moving desks and chairs to a new building.

[tlitody]

Regal Cinema expects to have practically all of its theatres converted to digital cinema by the end of 2012 http://tinyurl.com/regal-cinema-going-digital

When this happens, I think it's over for Kodak emulsions. So there's your time line.

What about the rest of the world?

[tlitody]

Not necessarily. Film production expertise doesn't transport well -- it takes staff as well as machines and that's assuming Kodak will ever sell its hard-won knowledge and facilities.

It's not like moving desks and chairs to a new building.

Well agfa sold their machines and emulsions which are now back in production. But somehow I think Kodak may be a little more protective about its patents just to be b****y minded about it..

[Roger Hicks]

Not necessarily. Film production expertise doesn't transport well -- it takes staff as well as machines and that's assuming Kodak will ever sell its hard-won knowledge and facilities.

It's not like moving desks and chairs to a new building.

Very true. When Ilford moved from Ilford to Mobberly, with the same machines and the same people, they had a hell of a job replicating thr film they'd made before. Film coating is a bit like brewing: very location-dependent.

And the people who bought the Agfa machines have said the same thing.

Cheers,

R.

[Steinberg2010]

If Ilford is doing so well I'd like to know why Freestyle still have their $4.59 two-packs of HP5+ listed and why so much of this got dumped into the US market at a fraction of the price the poor sods in Europe have to pay for it? It's been available at Freestyle for two months now so either it's not selling as well as they'd hoped or they literally bought 'tons' of the stuff!

As for Kodak ... I think when they do eventually get out of film everyone will breathe a sigh of relief and the rest of the manufacturers can get on with it and decide whether or not it's worth it to keep catering to a niche market while trying to keep your prices acceptable.

Could that not also be related to brand recognition – Ilford being a british label?

[Steinberg2010]

Well at least people are too environmentally-conscious to throw it all in the sea...

[bucs]

I hope camera GAS dies first so I can buy cheaper Leicas, Rolleis,or Hasselblads :D

[md2008]

Well, with all the Chinese (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106562&highlight=chinese+leica) photographers buying up Leica, there's a huge potential market for film.

[Keith]

Well, with all the Chinese (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106562&highlight=chinese+leica) photographers buying up Leica, there's a huge potential market for film.


'Chinese buying all the Leicas' ... they should be so Lucky! :D

[btgc]

Regal Cinema expects to have practically all of its theatres converted to digital cinema by the end of 2012 http://tinyurl.com/regal-cinema-going-digital

When this happens, I think it's over for Kodak emulsions. So there's your time line.

That matches well with arrival of Nibiru. Still, we have at least one and half year to use film cameras.

[Pickett Wilson]

"Well, with all the Chinese photographers buying up Leica, there's a huge potential market for film."

That's only assuming they use them more than the people they bought them from.

Kodak's film division LOST money in the first quarter of 2011, despite making small profits in previous quarters.

[Georgeboosh]

Regal Cinema expects to have practically all of its theatres converted to digital cinema by the end of 2012 http://tinyurl.com/regal-cinema-going-digital

When this happens, I think it's over for Kodak emulsions. So there's your time line.



Film makers still shoot on film, edit digitally, and can release the film in a digital format. The Regal Cinema news doesn't mean that film-makers will stop using film for shooting, just that film won't be used for the final print that gets sent to cinemas.

The King's Speech was shot on film, but still got shown at digital cinemas.

[rxmd]

That matches well with arrival of Nibiru. Still, we have at least one and half year to use film cameras.

I had high hopes for the Rapture, but unfortunately no leftover Leicas in the streets

[patois]

I did some research into who is making money from film when that article came and I discovered that Ilford has become a world leader in the manipulation of silver. I forget exactly what they do with it, but the do it well. :) Also, Kodak makes money from injet cartridges and film, the majority their inkjet money was because I believe they won a lawsuit.

[jsrockit]

Let me ask...doesn't the mass media tire of this type of story?

Don't RFF-ers get tired of the same old thread? ;) (sorry couldn't resist)

[sjw617]

And Fuji say they will be the last to stop producing film. i.e. they are in it to the end. So your colour film supplies will be safe for a good long while yet.
The end of film will be before there is only 1 guy in line waiting to buy a roll. A film manufacturer could stop making film for consumers and still make for the film industry. It would dramatically cut costs - advertising, shipping, boxes, spools etc. If Kodak wants to sell in a few years there may be no buyers for consumer photo film line. Fuji should have no interest,

Steve

[rogerzilla]

There are probably more than a billion film cameras in the world. Goodness knows how many the Chinese have. It will be a long time before they all have a computer at home or a local shop with a facility to print from SD cards.

I think someone will still make film - new emulsions are still appearing - and it just needs to be a smaller operation. What I'd really be interested to know is how far black-and-white film sales have fallen; the b/w mass market has been dead since the 1970s! Colour transparency ought to go though; in these days of scanning, colour neg is sharper*, far more forgiving,and you don't need to faff around with 81A filters to get the colour balance right since it will all be fixed in Photoshop.

*AIUI transparency film was only sharper because it was an original, whereas neg film had to be printed. If you're going to scan them, colour neg has the edge; and it captures far more detail because of its huge latitude.

[Vince Lupo]

I find it interesting that Gary Thompson (the fellow quoted in the article) got his medium format slide scanned and then printed. If he were a true purist he would have made a Cibachrome!

[Nomad Z]

In the end there will probably be a handful of smal boutique companies that cater to those who can afford to still shoot and develop the stuff.

For B&W, I think Ilford, and the likes of Adox/Efke, already amount to 'boutique' companies selling to a niche. If they can run a business on their current prices, the demise of a giant like Kodak is surely going to increase their output as people migrate to alternative brands. As long as the smaller makers compete with each other, I'd have thought a larger customer base would result in better economy of scale, such that prices don't suddenly go up.

To me, the limiting factor is the continued availability, and servicability, of film cameras - and people that want to use them.

[NLewis]

The 786m rolls to 20m rolls figure is truly daunting. The article states that another 30m rolls are sold in the form of disposable cameras! However, I think companies will be able to make film at a profit even in very small quantities. Just look at Ilford, which has maybe 5% of the photo film market, and none of the movie market. Not a big business, but sustainable. Kodak's film division has been making losses recently, but that is probably related to legacy labor costs and other baggage from their high-volume past. At some point it will probably be restructured and costs brought down, probably along with a sale.

[Jamie123]

Regal Cinema expects to have practically all of its theatres converted to digital cinema by the end of 2012 http://tinyurl.com/regal-cinema-going-digital

When this happens, I think it's over for Kodak emulsions. So there's your time line.

But that doesn't necessarily mean that filmmakers will stop using film to make movies. There are quite a few cinemas here that use digital projections but most of the films are still recorded on film stock.

[rogerzilla]

It's also ironic that most digitally-shot film is given artificial grain (taken from scanned film images of grey cards, I believe) in post-processing. If that isn't an admission that digital looks bad, what is?

I don't know about NTSC TV, but on PAL TV the difference between a programme shot on video without post-processing, like news and old sitcoms, and between something shot on film, is startling. The video footage is more realistic but somehow "cheaper" and "wrong". Pop promos really took off in the late 1970s; they started out in video but very quickly moved to film for its softer, more organic effect. Now it's come full circle and they can shoot video in the camera again, making it look like film later.

I can see artifical grain still being added in 100 years' time as a sort of skiamorph.

[Pickett Wilson]

NLewis, Kodak has spent this decade restructuring, I don't think there is much more fat to cut from the film division.

[kdemas]

Absolutely! That's why I didn't post a "Film Resurgence" thread :)

Don't RFF-ers get tired of the same old thread? ;) (sorry couldn't resist)