View Full Version : What may kill film
As a general, consumer format, anyway, is the execrable quality of prints from your local Wal Mart etc.
In fact, not so much the printing or developing as the way scans from negatives are handled.
I recently decided to start selling photos after getting some requests, and decided to try printing my own on an Epson R2400. I've long used the 4x6 prints from my C41 film as proofs, rescanning and having prints made from the ones that passed muster, at one of the local shops.
The last roll I had developed started me thinking, so I ran prints and compared. Yikes, sez I, maybe these don't suck so bad after all!
Tonight I was playing with the scanner and on a whim did a big print from a roll I pretty much discarded last summer. It's going on the wall.
Some of it may be just "auto correction", but maybe some is just bad chemicals or technique. Any ideas?
Film is so great but yeah, the Walmarts of this world are helping killing film Big time!
If you aren't doing your own printing, (either digital or wet,) or if you're not paying for premium pro service, you're letting a machine set on "average" run by an underpaid under-trained and disinterested employee, mess up your images.
tedwhite
04-20-2007, 17:37
I'm a bit confused here. Are you scanning the negs with a dedicated film scanner?
Or are you using proofs from Walmart to select the ones you like and then sending those negs to a pro lab for enlarging.
BrianPhotog
04-20-2007, 17:41
I started doing my own a *long* time ago. Average is good for family snaps, but that's it.
dazedgonebye
04-20-2007, 18:28
Scans from Target and Ritz (the ones I've tried) are only good enough to see if you want to scan the negative yourself. They've got the dust/scratch correction turned up so high that they really supress detail.
Since the target use for those cheap scans is a 4x6 print, it doesn't matter much to them.
shutterflower
04-20-2007, 18:48
I can't see how printing on an Epson R2400 is going to kill film. It has nothing to do with film. A high resolution printer only begs for high resolution files. Scans of film are at the top of the heap in that respect.
Ted White-I do my own scans, ut use the prints from the lab to decide which ones I'll scan and print.
Shutterflower-I don't think my 2400 will kill film either. It's the folks who get their prints back from whomever and then see the results from someone else's digital and decide that film just ain't no good.
When someone mentions the word Wal-mart, the first thing that comes to mind is: "opium for the masses" :D
If you give your film to Wal-mart, then you are just takening chances, and since you are shooting film and you want the best, why bother, go to a pro-lab.
:D
Mark
Quito, EC
mc_vancouver
04-20-2007, 20:11
What's not only killing film prints but killing AMERICA, CANADA and the rest of the world is Wal Mart. It is irony to the nth degree that this so-called all-American company is throwing thousands of merchants and their employees and small manufacturers out of work in favor of cheap Chinese imports. I don't blame the Chinese, I blame everyone who shops at Wal Mart. There are plenty of fine labs still around which do excellent work. You pay a little more, you support a local business, and you get a better product.
It's always entertaining to read through the various responses when we talk about the demise and or death of film. George nailed it, an Epson printer isn't going to kill film. No doubt that quality suffers when processing is done at big box retailers, but one must ask why we use these retailers in the first place? In my opinion it's that old "money" thing. Target or Wal-Mart gets the business because they're the most cost competitive. The average consumer isn't as demanding when it comes to image or print quality like we are here at RFF. Sometimes I feel we start these threads to try and convince ourselves that film is here to stay. I think if we're really honest with ourselves we know that film will continue to fade out (no pun intended) and that the "D" word is the future. Film is great and I have a freezer full of it here at my house in Austin. It's really all about economics, there will come a time when film is too cost prohibitive for all of us and I for one am not looking forward to that day.
Long and short of it............. shoot film and enjoy it while we all can.
Best,
Sherm
What's not only killing film prints but killing AMERICA, CANADA and the rest of the world is Wal Mart. It is irony to the nth degree that this so-called all-American company is throwing thousands of merchants and their employees and small manufacturers out of work in favor of cheap Chinese imports. I don't blame the Chinese, I blame everyone who shops at Wal Mart. There are plenty of fine labs still around which do excellent work. You pay a little more, you support a local business, and you get a better product.
I'm going to try and stay on topic and not stray into global economics, but I must comment that like it or not and I already know what your feelings are on the subject there is nothing more all-American than a free market economy where you lead follow or get out of the way. In my opinion there's nothing romantic about the shop keeper down the street that sells the same items that the Walton's do for 30%-40% more. Wal-Mart definitely has it's share of issues, but at the same time they provide buying opportunities to consumers who might otherwise not be able to. There, I told you I was going to stay out of this debate.;) ;)
Sherm
SolaresLarrave
04-20-2007, 21:17
aad, try another lab. I have been very lucky at Walgreens, at least locally, for my C-41 stuff.
Now, the best scanning you can do is from the negatives, not the prints. Is that what you do?
aad, try another lab. I have been very lucky at Walgreens, at least locally, for my C-41 stuff.
Now, the best scanning you can do is from the negatives, not the prints. Is that what you do?
Yep, negatives/slides. My scans are fine, my printer is fine, heck, often Wal Mart prints from my scans are fine if the beastie is set for "no corrections", but dropping a roll there for 1 hour gets loust prints often as not (same as some Ritz places) though the negs are fine.
By the way, amazing how the point gets lost, eh? Sure do like my printer, AND my film.
toyotadesigner
04-21-2007, 00:00
If you think, talk and contract 'WalMart' you think cheap and won't make money.
If you think film and sell your prints, costs shouldn't be that important. An example:
We shoot exclusively on Fuji Provia 100F for MF 120 and 35mm. Cost per film is 7.80 Euros or US$ 10.60. Development at a professional lab adds another 3.80 Euros or US$ 5.16. That totals to 11.60 Euros or US$ 15.76 per roll. Plus the time and expenses to get the rolls to the lab and pick them up.
All in all we pay 1.45 Euros or US$ 1.96 per 6x9 MF 120 image, or 0.32 Euros or US$ 0.44 per 24x36mm 35mm image.
Scanning with a Nikon Coolscan LS 5000 and LS 9000 is fine tuned and streamlined, working in the background, cost is not so important because we can write off the equipment.
Then we have the images printed assigning this task to a subcontractor. Price depends on the final size. They use real photo paper or fine art paper or screen cloth or whatever we want.
A large format print (50x75 cm) sells for at least 300 Euros or US$ 400 per image. We can charge this price because of the overwhelming quality we get with our 35mm and 6x9 lenses (we can have prints made up to 120x180 cm @ 300 ppi without visible grain and full tonal range).
Compare this to the cost per image you are talking about. I really don't even think about the film and development costs at a professional lab.
If we talk film, we mean quality, resolution, tonal range. That's the USP that helps us doing good business. No standard D shooter or cheap lab customer can even come close to it.
Another example: yesterday I've shot a documentation of a real estate. 3 hours @ 90 Euros or US$ 122 plus one roll 35mm. Only nuts would have had the film developed at a retail chain.
It's similar to cars: a DaimlerChrysler or Mercedes Benz or BMW or Porsche cost more because they do have more to offer than those cheap plastic rice bowls from Far East or the dinosours made in the US.
As long as we will work hand in hand with other professionals it's a wise investment into jobs and knowledge which helps us to stay in business with quality. People who don't want or don't know quality will place their orders with the wannabe competitors anyway. Or use their mobile phones to capture so called 'great images' (kind regards from the largest camera manufacturer in the world: Nokia!)
The choice is yours: be a WalMart/Nokia freak or a real photographer. There is no in-between.
just my two cents.
As a general, consumer format, anyway
It's already dead as a general consumer format, in the industrialised West anyway. It's only a matter of time before Walmart and the like will no longer develop it at all, and it becomes an entirely specialist/enthusiast format.
Ian
As a general, consumer format, anyway, is the execrable quality of prints from your local Wal Mart etc.
As a general consumer format I would imagine it's already dead...I don't think I know of anyone who isn't an enthusiast photographer who still uses film.
What would kill film for me is having a reasonably priced digital camera that can handle some damn latitude...don't know why it hasnt been invented yet...my digital video camera can handle up to 13 stops...
toyotadesigner
04-21-2007, 03:45
It's already dead as a general consumer format, in the industrialised West anyway. It's only a matter of time before Walmart and the like will no longer develop it at all, and it becomes an entirely specialist/enthusiast format.
Exactly. You've hit the nail on its head. For the same reason Fuji invested some 30 Million Euros into a new R&D lab in Japan last year, launched several new film emulsions this year and considerably expands the base for film processing with mini labs.
And isn't it a funny coincidence that the last 12 months more films have been sold in Japan and the US? Did the Japanese and Americans lost their minds buying dead stuff to glue it to their walls?
Many users already discovered that digital is banana ware which has to ripe in the hands of the consumers, financed by the trendy herd following the marketing hype. They switch back to analog. More will follow, or how would you explain the tremendous sales of analog equipment at ebay Europe to American bidders? And how would you explain that the new Rollei films are hard to get in Europe because the largest part is consumed in the US?
Would be interesting to read your answers here :D
Don't think digital. Think molecular. A stellar experience.
I make a habit of polling shop owners on film sales. It's still a major force in consumer photography, probably more in the US than overseas I think. Walgreens and Walmart are a big reason. The small enthusiast shops are more didgital oriented. Frankly, I get better results from Wal Mart and Walgreens than many Ritz Camera shops.
ElrodCod
04-21-2007, 05:44
What's not only killing film prints but killing AMERICA, CANADA and the rest of the world is Wal Mart. It is irony to the nth degree that this so-called all-American company is throwing thousands of merchants and their employees and small manufacturers out of work in favor of cheap Chinese imports. I don't blame the Chinese, I blame everyone who shops at Wal Mart. There are plenty of fine labs still around which do excellent work. You pay a little more, you support a local business, and you get a better product.
Why pick on Wal-Mart? Chinese made products are sold everywhere. Sears, Target, K-Mart, Big Lots, Family Dollar, Dollar General, Macy's, J.C. Penney, Walgreens, CVS, Harbor Freight, and many other stores sell Chinese made goods and you never hear a "peep" about them. When the blame gets dished out it's always dumped the shoppers..... no mention of Bill Clinton's role in the matter. Well here's a news flash.....there are a lot of folks out there that are on a much lower economic level than you are. For them, Wal-Mart is a blessing so get off your high horse.
It's already dead as a general consumer format, in the industrialised West anyway. It's only a matter of time before Walmart and the like will no longer develop it at all, and it becomes an entirely specialist/enthusiast format.
Ian
You should really try and get out more. In the US, every gas station, grocery store, and drug store has a decent range of C41, both color and B&W. Every drug store and discount department store has a one hour set-up, and every grocery store has at least a bin for film drop-off. There are disposable film cameras in every check-out aisle, and a very popular party favor for weddings, group travel events, and cruises are disposable film cameras. Even the small town I grew up in has a dedicated photography store, selling film, paper, developer, lenses, and even the occasional camera. The very medium-to-small city I live in has three competing camera shops with rather extensive film inventory, one of which has five branches all over the area.
How's that old phrase go? Film is Dead! Long live Film!
IMHO, digital hasn't displaced film at all. It merely gives the consumer yet another option, and added a lucrative revenue stream for the major film manufacturers. As long as I see little yellow boxes everywhere I go, I have to say the reports of film's demise are greatly exaggerated.
NickTrop
04-21-2007, 05:54
It's already dead as a general consumer format, in the industrialised West anyway. It's only a matter of time before Walmart and the like will no longer develop it at all, and it becomes an entirely specialist/enthusiast format.
Ian
Nope. More film was sold in 2005 than in 1992, pre-digital. That's because the world-wide photography market has grown greatly. There are 6 places with C-41 machines in proximity to my house. There's three that I know of a stone's throw from where I work. Those A-Z bins look pretty big in each one. The C41 machines all seem to be humming. Anecdotally, at least in my area, I see more people dropping off film than standing in front of the kiosk. In my immediate family, there are no digital shooters. Dad loves his old Canon. Sis loves her point and shoot. Kodak came out with new super-8 movie film in 2006(!) and new black and white reveral 16mm movie film in 2005. There seems to be more film stock color and black and white than ever. But, yes, there has been some displacement. Disposable film cameras are huge sellers. I will never shoot digital... ever. I shot it, liked it a lot for a while, went back to film never to return to digital.
Digital can be convenient. But it typically requires an investment in computers, software, storage, and a learning curve for all of it. With a film camera - especially a point and shoot, you shoot and drop your film off at a lab and pic it up in an hour. Even kiosks intimidate and annoy some people. Digital too dependent on other stuff and - sorry, to my eye it simply doesn't look as good as film. Some claim digital has the best color. That seems to be the consensus. Eh - I didn't see it. My camera had difficulty with greens and sometimes reds. It clipped highlights, which I HATED. No latitude, dynamic range a joke, noise reduction algorythms "smeard" detail out of images and gave things an unnatural plactic-y look, which I HATED. I got moire patterns and other artifacts. I spent slightly less money for that camera than, literally, 5 decades old cameras (all of which work, and includes CLA costs) and "stuff" I needed to get a print - including ridiculously priced inks, and the digital was obsolete, again literally, a year later.
Again, this is why filmmakers still shot on film, even on TV, despite costs. With film, you chemically freeze a mirror of reality on paper. Digital images are computer-generated, computer "rendered" reproductions of reality. Don't let the fact that both digital and film cameras use a lens (or can use the same lenses, even) fool you. This is very apparent in a word digital images are fakes. They're unevocative, lifeless. Very apparent in moving images, less apparent in stills but the lifeless, personalityless, dullness of digital-rendered reality is still there. Engineers have been trying and trying to make "digital look like film" - p24, adding grain, shooting with telephoto lenses from across the street to emulate "bokeh" but they cant. Digital is a cheap capture medium, and more easily to manipulate but the computer-rendered sysnthesized baylor interpolated "drawing" don't capture reality, they make phony recreations of it using pixels, silicone chips, and 1's and 0's.
Again, when you want to "tell a story", when filmmakers want to evolk emotion, they use film. Nothing else will do. Same applies to still photography.
I'm sure there are millions like me who would give up his photographic hobby before ever considering some crappy overpriced digital camera that produces soulless, lifeless, computer-generated "pictures". When the digital camera market dies because the bulk of the camera market stops buying them after the electronics die in their camera in a few years and simply shoot with their 4 megapixel cell phones, I'll still be shooting film.
Football is the most popular sport. But there's plenty of interest in cycling. Neither will go away.
Film is dead nonsense is silly.
dazedgonebye
04-21-2007, 05:55
You should really try and get out more. In the US, every gas station, grocery store, and drug store has a decent range of C41, both color and B&W. Every drug store and discount department store has a one hour set-up, and every grocery store has at least a bin for film drop-off. There are disposable film cameras in every check-out aisle, and a very popular party favor for weddings, group travel events, and cruises are disposable film cameras. Even the small town I grew up in has a dedicated photography store, selling film, paper, developer, lenses, and even the occasional camera. The very medium-to-small city I live in has three competing camera shops with rather extensive film inventory, one of which has five branches all over the area.
How's that old phrase go? Film is Dead! Long live Film!
IMHO, digital hasn't displaced film at all. It merely gives the consumer yet another option, and added a lucrative revenue stream for the major film manufacturers. As long as I see little yellow boxes everywhere I go, I have to say the reports of film's demise are greatly exaggerated.
No black and white in any of the department/grocery stores around here (Phoenix). You can find it at the chain photo stores though.
But yes, you can buy film in any grocery or drug store around and have it developed in all the discount department stores plus the Ritz sorts of places.
On the other hand...the Ritz manager tells me that some days they do no film at all and he thinks it unlikely they'll replace their film developing systems when they require it.
monochromejrnl
04-21-2007, 06:04
too many confuse dead new film camera sales to mean that film is dead... is suspect there are millions of film cameras out there eating more film now than ever before...
shadowfox
04-21-2007, 07:39
Ready for a shocking news?
eBay keeps film photography alive
:eek:
Ready for a shocking news?
eBay keeps film photography alive
AND improves your credit rating ... :rolleyes:
toyotadesigner
04-21-2007, 11:20
eBay keeps film photography alive
as well as many small shops that feature a second hand camera department! I even know several dealers in Germany and Spain who give a one year warranty on used analog equipment. What about north America - same structure over there?
shutterflower
04-21-2007, 11:29
Ready for a shocking news?
eBay keeps film photography alive
:eek:
you know, that's probably the most shocking realization that any of us will ever make in our little lives.
Well, if I can put in my two cents here. I used to get crap from Walmart processing, but ya know what, I've complained to the dept. mgr., and to the store mgr., telling them that you're wasting my time and they're losing money having to redo them, and now my prints come out very sharp and with great color. When I pick up my film, if it's not to my liking, I have them do it over again by hand, and perhaps they get tired of me complaing to them, cause now the prints come out just great. Always remember, the squeaky axle gets the grease! Now everytime I go in they remark to me how much they enjoy looking at my pictures, especially those from Russia/Ukraine - so, perhaps this reminds them to do a good job, at least on mine!!!
Ronald M
04-21-2007, 11:59
Consumer processing is the downfall of film. There are a million ways to cut corners from underreplenished chemistry, wash stabilizer instead of wash, debris in the chemicals, dirty tanks, air drying in the store. The list goes on forever and that is just the film processing.
Doing it right costs money and few know the difference and are willing to pay for it.
Photography is perfect, yet few ever see perfect resultls and most do not know they are being screwed.
Kodak tried to fix this with APS format. I went to a pro presentation at Kodak before it came out. Every pro in the audience told them they were not going to sell this. Turned out to be true. Another Kodak bo bo.
People now just do digi and put them in the computer. The computer image is better than what comers from the drugstore so they are happy.
Crappy film processing is killing film.
I haven't had one print made in over a year. I take too many photos, and having too many prints would require room for storage. I get scans only now.
I agree with the statement that ebay is playing a positive role in keeping film based photography equipment accessible to everyone.
Raid
Would be interesting to read your answers here :D
Don't think digital. Think molecular. A stellar experience.
The film market is in decline, soon it will be a niche in most of the world, just ask anyone who works in a photo shop how much film processing they do now compared to a couple of years ago and you have your trend, clear and simple. I shoot mostly film, so I'm not celebrating this, just noting it. It seems odd to me to deny the obvious. Film will never die out, but it'll never again be the mainstream, and that was the only point I was making, I wasn't proposing some thesis about the superiority of digital. It's already quite difficult to find any high street shop in central London with the facilities to process b&w film (apart from C41), and the photo shop in easy reach of where I work in the centre of London only stocks Tri-X because I asked them to, I'm the only regular customer for it that they have. This is London remember, a major city full of photographers.
Things are different at the moment outside the industrialised West, where film and music cassette tapes still sell in quantity. It's only a matter of time though...
Ian
Fujifilm is certainly bringing it on to a new level! :D Fujichrome Provia 400X and new Velvia 50! :D
I can not wait to try Provia 400X! for some low light, night photography.
I am in love with chrome ! :D
F3HP loaded with chrome, sweet! :D
MArk
Quito, EC
ChrisPlatt
04-21-2007, 13:56
I seldom see people looking at prints anymore, film or digital.
Viewing photos on a PC monitor or even the tiny LCD screen
of a digicam or cellphone apparently suffices for most now.
Chris
Doesn't everyone get scans to CD from the "Wallies" for computer proofing and sharing plus short term storage? Then some prints, if desired. :)
Half hour processing and scanning for less than $5 is a "no brainer" for me and ......... those 5 Pacs of film (new sensors) are pretty cheap too. :)
Scratches the "digital itch" for me. :D Regards.
Too bad the scans from the locals are kind of nasty-my own are better.
The ultimate reason for my photography is prints or slides for display or show. The monitor is where I do my final cull, and I regularly delete scans.
ChrisPlatt
04-21-2007, 16:11
As you may know I work on mail processing equipment for the US Postal Service.
Some envelopes get mangled in the sorting machines and spill their contents.
I find digital camera memory cards regularly when cleaning the machines.
Further proof that people can't be bothered printing their pictures anymore...
Chris
tedwhite
04-21-2007, 16:13
I don't go near Walmart. I develop and print all my black and white and send color to a lab in Tucson. Doesn't cost much as long as I don't ask them to send it back (Bisbee is 90 miles from Tucson). If I do, their shipping cost can equal the film processing cost. So if you specify "local pickup" they hold it until you show up.
Or, I send color neg film to Photo Works in Seattle, and for about $12.50 they process the film, provide a 5X7 contact sheet, a set of 5X7 prints, and a roll of fresh film. Not bad.
toyotadesigner
04-21-2007, 16:35
We are getting closer!
What about this: Let's start a thread where everyone can post his/her good and reliable lab for b&w, slides, C41, together with a rating?
Example:
Mediterraneo
address: soandso street, 9, city, zip, phone
E6/slides/chromes: excellent
b&w: very good
C41: excellent
extras: analog enlargements up to 60x90 cm
24 hour processing
bring in and pick up only
This way we can set up a database or a look up table for all film users. Of course everybody from all over the world should post his/her recommendations so that we all will benefit from this project when on a travel to another country.
Sounds like a plan?
We are getting closer!
What about this: Let's start a thread where everyone can post his/her good and reliable lab for b&w, slides, C41, together with a rating?
In the UK, Peak Imaging - a mail service - superb quality.
I do all my own b&w and C41 now - I'd be bankrupt otherwise. ;)
(I worked out that if I paid street prices for film and processing here, i could buy a new Nikon D200 every three months)
But I did use Walmart back in January during a US trip - results were pretty good.
kshapero
04-21-2007, 17:54
What's not only killing film prints but killing AMERICA, CANADA and the rest of the world is Wal Mart. It is irony to the nth degree that this so-called all-American company is throwing thousands of merchants and their employees and small manufacturers out of work in favor of cheap Chinese imports. I don't blame the Chinese, I blame everyone who shops at Wal Mart. There are plenty of fine labs still around which do excellent work. You pay a little more, you support a local business, and you get a better product.
Sorry, that is just NOT the facts. Walmart exists because people want medioce items at good costs. I can't blame them. They serve a good purpose. As far as small business goes, well, either be great or die. I have a store two doors down from a Walmart selling produce (so does Walmart). My business grows an average of 35% a year. Why? My stuff is local and fresh and my staff are knowledgable and personable. I love Walmart. They bring me traffic. God bless America, Canada and so on.:cool:
kshapero
04-21-2007, 17:56
By the way I would never use Walmart for film developing. But I do sometimes buy film there. I use a pro lab for negs then scan and do my own printing.
We are getting closer!
What about this: Let's start a thread where everyone can post his/her good and reliable lab for b&w, slides, C41, together with a rating?
Example:
Mediterraneo
address: soandso street, 9, city, zip, phone
E6/slides/chromes: excellent
b&w: very good
C41: excellent
extras: analog enlargements up to 60x90 cm
24 hour processing
bring in and pick up only
This way we can set up a database or a look up table for all film users. Of course everybody from all over the world should post his/her recommendations so that we all will benefit from this project when on a travel to another country.
Sounds like a plan?
Wal Mart
Almost worldwide or coming soon to a location near you :)
One hour or less 35mm (SF) C41 machine processing/scanning to CD.
A worlwide trip for me would include Kodachrome/120 Astia/120 Portra mailed to Duane's for processing.
Regards.
I've had enough of the "will film survive?" and "will (average) people return to film?" arguments. The answers are: "Yes" and "No."
I'm shooting a lot of flim right now and non-specialist lab processing doesn't seem any better or worse than 20 years ago. Hasn't it ALWAYS been pretty lame? For anything serious, I haven't trusted drugstore-type processing since the advent of the minilab, when they stopped sending everything out to Kodak. Right now I have a really good relationship with the minilab crew at my local Costco, who are getting me nice, usable scans on CD, but I have to work at it.
I agree that putting together a sticky thread on who/where the best labs are would be one of the most useful things RFF could be doing.
nasmformyzombie
04-21-2007, 19:44
What's not only killing film prints but killing AMERICA, CANADA and the rest of the world is Wal Mart. It is irony to the nth degree that this so-called all-American company is throwing thousands of merchants and their employees and small manufacturers out of work in favor of cheap Chinese imports. I don't blame the Chinese, I blame everyone who shops at Wal Mart. There are plenty of fine labs still around which do excellent work. You pay a little more, you support a local business, and you get a better product.
Amen. I for one will never set foot in a Walmart store, period.
tedwhite
04-21-2007, 19:59
Read the Walmart piece in a recent issue of the New Yorker. I like the part where they tell a US vendor, we won't buy your product anymore until you relocate your manufacturing facility to China so we don't have to pay so much for your stuff.
Bye, bye, American jobs.
The film market is in decline, soon it will be a niche in most of the world, just ask anyone who works in a photo shop how much film processing they do now compared to a couple of years ago and you have your trend, clear and simple. I shoot mostly film, so I'm not celebrating this, just noting it. It seems odd to me to deny the obvious. Film will never die out, but it'll never again be the mainstream, and that was the only point I was making, I wasn't proposing some thesis about the superiority of digital. It's already quite difficult to find any high street shop in central London with the facilities to process b&w film (apart from C41), and the photo shop in easy reach of where I work in the centre of London only stocks Tri-X because I asked them to, I'm the only regular customer for it that they have. This is London remember, a major city full of photographers.
Things are different at the moment outside the industrialised West, where film and music cassette tapes still sell in quantity. It's only a matter of time though...
Ian
have you not read the responses so far in this thread? Can you not see that you are wrong? There is as much film available today as there was 20 years ago. Arguably, traditional B&W was "dead" with the advent of color, yet here we are with a website dedicated to rangefinder cameras, and many members shoot B&W regularly. Not quite as "mainstream" as C41, but hardly gone for good. In my rather modest city, there are more than a few photography clubs that are rather heavily traditional B&W enthusiasts. There are several public labs for rent. B&W photography is still alive and well. C41 is far more popular, as is digital, but that does not mean that silver-based B&W is anywhere close to "dead." So why do you keep pushing the idea that all film is "dead?" Is there some sort of personal justification in your insistence? There is no evidence to support such a claim, either in the US or anywhere else in the world according to the information posted here and elsewhere.
Give it a rest. Shoot what you want. The only thing dead around here is the horse you won't quit beating :/
Read the Walmart piece in a recent issue of the New Yorker. I like the part where they tell a US vendor, we won't buy your product anymore until you relocate your manufacturing facility to China so we don't have to pay so much for your stuff.
Bye, bye, American jobs.
Unfortunately, our politicians, bureaucrats, Wall Street and big business have already sold out the "American worker". :bang: Fortunately, film still belongs in the class of products that remain available to the underemployed in the US, like cheap underwear from Wally. :D Capitalism in the US has been replaced by Oligopolies.:mad: I didn't say that, did I?:rolleyes: Regards. :angel:
have you not read the responses so far in this thread? Can you not see that you are wrong? There is as much film available today as there was 20 years ago.
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Anybody who thinks digital isn't displacing film as the mainstream photographic format has his head in the clouds. Show me some hard figures demonstrating that more film is being sold in the industrialised West now than 20 years ago, I'd really love to see them. Show me some hard figures for the amount of film being processed in the high street now compared to 20 years ago.
Arguably, traditional B&W was "dead" with the advent of color, yet here we are with a website dedicated to rangefinder cameras, and many members shoot B&W regularly.
We are not the mainstream, we are a small minority of enthusiasts. How hard is it for you to grasp this very elementary point?
So why do you keep pushing the idea that all film is "dead?"
If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would see I've made no such claim at all. I've said film is dead as the mainstream photographic format for the general consumer in the industrialised West. Try reading what people write before jumping in with irrelevant responses.
Give it a rest. Shoot what you want. The only thing dead around here is the horse you won't quit beating :/
This is a discussion forum, where people express opinions. Don't have the arrogance to tell me what I should or shouldn't contribute.
Ian
Nikon Bob
04-22-2007, 03:27
have you not read the responses so far in this thread? Can you not see that you are wrong? There is as much film available today as there was 20 years ago. Arguably, traditional B&W was "dead" with the advent of color, yet here we are with a website dedicated to rangefinder cameras, and many members shoot B&W regularly. Not quite as "mainstream" as C41, but hardly gone for good. In my rather modest city, there are more than a few photography clubs that are rather heavily traditional B&W enthusiasts. There are several public labs for rent. B&W photography is still alive and well. C41 is far more popular, as is digital, but that does not mean that silver-based B&W is anywhere close to "dead." So why do you keep pushing the idea that all film is "dead?" Is there some sort of personal justification in your insistence? There is no evidence to support such a claim, either in the US or anywhere else in the world according to the information posted here and elsewhere.
Give it a rest. Shoot what you want. The only thing dead around here is the horse you won't quit beating :/
Look this is film dying is getting very old and to a good deal it depends o where you live as to the outlook you have. In my home town of 100,00 people the variety and quantity of C41 film available at most retailers has drastically shrunk over the last few years. Trying to get slide or traditional B&W locally is a joke. So from where I sit I think in my area for the average consumer film is a dying if not dead issue. I know no pros in my area that still use film although there may still be a few holdouts. Time to smell the roses and enjoy film while it is here at a reasonable cost.
Bob
Just because you say it doesn't make it so. Anybody who thinks digital isn't displacing film as the mainstream photographic format has his head in the clouds. Show me some hard figures demonstrating that more film is being sold in the industrialised West now than 20 years ago, I'd really love to see them. Show me some hard figures for the amount of film being processed in the high street now compared to 20 years ago.
We are not the mainstream, we are a small minority of enthusiasts. How hard is it for you to grasp this very elementary point?
If you actually bothered to read my posts, you would see I've made no such claim at all. I've said film is dead as the mainstream photographic format for the general consumer in the industrialised West. Try reading what people write before jumping in with irrelevant responses.
This is a discussion forum, where people express opinions. Don't have the arrogance to tell me what I should or shouldn't contribute.
Ian
One, the burden of proof is on you to prove your point if you are going to make claims. I'm responding to your unproven claims, so I have no responsibility to provide any data. If you wish to prove your points with data, that is your option. And my statement was there is as much film available. I've made no claims as far as sales figures, because that is irrelevant. If you yourself lack any hard data, why are you arguing the point? How can you even make statements like you have with no supporting data?
Two, how is the fact that rangefinder users are a minority of camera users relevant? The very fact that we are a small minority yet have no problems sourcing B&W materials proves my point. Your pointing out that we are a minority is merely a digression into the obvious.
Three, how many ways are you going to hedge your statements? Regardless, I still dispute your claim, and there is more than enough anecdotal evidence that is easily verified in this thread to disprove your claims. If you want to claim film is dead on High Street, fine. Who the hell cares about High Street? Certainly most of the world could care less what London retailers do or do not carry. There is a camera shop and drug store on almost every block on the island of Manhattan, and they all carry film and every drug store has one hour processing, if we are going to duel by metropolis :)
Fourth, you are more than welcome to discuss any topic you care to consider, just as other members are free to discuss their exasperation with the number of times this claim has been brought up. IMHO, if you have to tell people film is dead, it obviously isn't. Because if it was, we all would have noticed by now.
You won't change your mind. Until you do, people will dispute your arguments. So go on claiming film is dead [insert whatever qualifications you wish here] and you are the only one smart enough to identify the signs. Just don't be surprised if you end up preaching to the choir and everyone else has gone home, stopping off to buy some film and drop off a few rolls on the way.
Some claim digital has the best color. That seems to be the consensus. Eh - I didn't see it. My camera had difficulty with greens and sometimes reds. It clipped highlights, which I HATED. No latitude, dynamic range a joke.
I'm always leery of blowing out the highlights, and digital advocates assured me this wouldn't be a problem with the D word. Yet I always see complaints about it! Evidently all that digital R&D money hasn't solved this, to me, important issue. No thanks, I'll stick with film.
jaffa_777
04-22-2007, 05:03
I just bought $700 dollars of film stock to take on a new documentary project. I consider the project too valuable and worthwhile to shoot on digital. Funny that.
This thread and the current value of the US dollar is making me wonder if I should start stockpiling more film now before the good times run out.
One, the burden of proof is on you to prove your point if you are going to make claims. I'm responding to your unproven claims, so I have no responsibility to provide any data.
Right, I'm going to say this once more, and then I'm going to ignore you until you demonstrate some reading comprehension.
Here is my first post again:
It's already dead as a general consumer format, in the industrialised West anyway. It's only a matter of time before Walmart and the like will no longer develop it at all, and it becomes an entirely specialist/enthusiast format.
My only point was that as a mainstream general consumer format in the West (the words are all there in the orignal post, but it seems I have to emphasise them again and again), film is in steep decline, and will quite soon be dead. All of the replies about how film is better than digital, artists like film more than digital, etc etc, are entirely irrelevant to this very simple point.
You've made a claim that film sales are as high or higher than they were 20 years ago. I merely asked, reasonably enough, for some substantiation of that claim, because, if it is true, then the entire photographic industry is suffering from a mass delusion when they base their long term strategies on the demise of film as anything other than a niche format for a small minority of enthusiasts and art photographers.
Anyway, you seem to prefer to raise straw man arguments arguing against things I haven't said rather than addressing the points I actually have raised, so I can't see any point prolonging this discussion.
Ian
Here in the UK there's a large chain of minilabs and, if they are all like my local one, they are doing a good job of killing film. My sister took a roll of colour film there and it seems that after they processed it, they put it in the sleeves still damp and then folded the whole lot in half (vertically, not horizonally which would be fine). Unfortunatley this ruined the majority of the keepers.
She also had prints done, and it seems the prints were done after the film had been ruined because most of the prints were showing the damage on the negatives. Another problem is that prints seem to be made from a fairly low res scan, not such a problem as you don't usually expect so much from a set of minilab 6x4's.
ChrisPlatt
04-22-2007, 05:48
IIRC there were far more serious amateur photographers 20 years ago.
They used film because there was no digital yet.
The $200 digital camera popular now is just another throwaway consumer appliance
and for most does not represent any real commitment to photography as hobby or art.
Chris
I don't worry too much about film availability. When "the time comes", I will use whatever is available then, even it is digital. My camera gear will be then a collection.
Raid
Two, how is the fact that rangefinder users are a minority of camera users relevant? The very fact that we are a small minority yet have no problems sourcing B&W materials proves my point. Your pointing out that we are a minority is merely a digression into the obvious.
I have a problem sourcing B/W materials, else I wouldn't have to buy chemicals by mail order in a town with 600,000 inhabitants.
Certainly most of the world could care less what London retailers do or do not carry. There is a camera shop and drug store on almost every block on the island of Manhattan, and they all carry film and every drug store has one hour processing, if we are going to duel by metropolis :)
I can fly to London for 19 Euro, NewYork is slightly more expensive. And here your choice of film is limited to Fuji C200 in some super markets and Ferania in a couple drugstores.
Just another thought....
Many have in this discussion thread and others expressed the concern that it becomes harder and harder to get hold of film and to process film. That is of course true and simply a fact but it does not concern me so much since Internet will become the channel to order I am pretty sure. You will order film online, get it by post, send the film in for processing and then get the scanned photos on the web. There may be very few players, maybe not even one player in each country but as long as ther processing is done with quality this will work fine. I do this today and I actually think it adds flexibility even if the days are gone when I could go to my local shop and get lot´s of different sorts of film...
/jon
I agree with Jon. I mainly buy film online and not locally. With respect to B&W developing, I am mailing my film to friend in Miami who develops the film for me at the same cost as I would have locally at the only B&W lab here. I am used to online purchases. There are far more options than I could get in any store.
Raid
tedwhite
04-22-2007, 06:56
Yesterday I called Freestyle and ordered some inks for my Epson R2400. While I was chatting with the salesperson I asked her about black and white film sales.
She said they were booming, that most of the films they stock are European (Ilford, Arista, Efke, Forte, Fomapan, etc.), and that these manufacturers seem to be filling a US market that Kodak is slowly pulling out of. The same seems also true of photographic papers.
Worldwide, there are lots of folks and institutions well aware of the questionable durability of digital images over time, whereas there are no such questions regarding film.
As an example, two days ago I scanned, for a client, four original C.S. Fly (a turn-of the century Tombstone photographer) photographs that look just as good as the day they were made, which was probably around 1900. One shows the surrender of Geronimo, the Apache chief, another his camp, etc.
The client had sold the photographs (I would assume for a considerable sum) and wanted copies for herself. I printed them using Epson Enhanced Matte paper and the Epson Matte Black ink. The paper and the ink are obviously made for each other and the black and white results are striking.
Anyway, I guess what I am saying is that film has value in terms of archival and historical preservation, whereas digital images - at least at this point - leave a question mark in one's mind. What will they be like in 100 years...
Ted, judging from the prints and negs I had processed at the 1 hour at Disneyworld in 1985 I don't think that much of that will be left in 10 years.
Nachkebia
04-22-2007, 07:04
People without taste and aesthetic feeling might kill film :(
I don't think film is dead by any means. Sale of new film cameras seems to be virtually dead, but there are a lot of film cameras still being fed many rolls.
The majority of my experience with the 1 hour photo labs in non-photo stores is absolutely horrible. "Sometimes" you can find one that develops ok, but I haven't found one that prints well at all. I only use them when I am just doing a quick test roll or for when I am in a hurry and shot a roll to plan for a real shoot.
If you really want to get the full range and detail out of your film, take it to a true pro lab and discuss with them what you want. I do this with my film, then scan them at a proof level setting on my scanner to see which ones are worth the time & effort for the better scans and post-processing time.
Stay away from the "Walmarts" unless, high contrast, low detail, over saturation, and scratches are acceptable. Unfortunately, it does seem to be acceptable for the majority of people.
Best,
Ray
PS. If you shoot color, try some of the new "red label" Kodak Portra films. (Improved color and scanning)
I use more film today, than 20 years (or 40 years) ago, and there are two (C41) mini labs within walking distance of my front door. But all the dedicated photo shops have gone, unless you want a Dcam phone.
The results are the same as 40 years ago, but cheaper in real terms. My colleagues in work go ooooh B&W. My photo chum who has a showcase full of Nikon film SLR, when I e-mail a mini lab scan to says 'flat and how did you get your scan toned serpia, but they are sharp'!
But Kchrome 25 is long gone.
Mr. GWarming may hit D more than F, only worry about the big things, be happy.
Noel
P.S. 1/10 of frame edge Kodak 400 Zorki 1a 1/100 f/5.6
Well environmental regulations won't killed film as manufacturing can move to countries with less stringent regs. However if the price of silver where to skyrocket (it has risen astronmically already in the past 5 years) as some precious metal speculators are predicting it could push the price of a roll of silver based film up into the stratosphere.
toyotadesigner
04-22-2007, 08:36
I have a problem sourcing B/W materials, else I wouldn't have to buy chemicals by mail order in a town with 600,000 inhabitants.
As I've seen from your 'old' profile you are living in Bremen where I was born. I still return twice a year to Bremen, Oldenburg and Hamburg.
And I definitely know that at least Foto Bischoff in the Balgebrückstrasse carries everything for b&w enthusiast as well as slide or chome film. They even offer developing services for b&w, chromes and color.
So why are you submitting these tell tale stories here? Seems you are on the Geiz-is-Geil trip, not wanting to spend money on the material you need or the quality we are talking about here.
In addition there is the retail chain Foto Dose all over the city where you can get **any** film you want.
The situation in Hamburg and Oldenburg is even better. So I really don't understand what you want to tell us with your post - lies?
I can fly to London for 19 Euro, NewYork is slightly more expensive. And here your choice of film is limited to Fuji C200 in some super markets and Ferania in a couple drugstores.
19 Euros to London is a gimmick, you know that. If you have to fly tomorrow morning leaving at 7:30, you **know** you'll have to pay at least 300 Euros round trip.
As I said on top of this post: Foto Bischoff, Foto Dose, in the Steintor there is a photo shop with lots of supply, ALDI and LIDL sell film (rebranded Kodaks and Fujis, some of them even rebranded AGFAs), as well as Schlecker, DM, Rossmann, Karstadt, Galeria Kaufhof in downtown...
Even the development of chromes through Rossman (developed from CEWE Color Oldenburg) or Schlecker (developed from CEWE Color Oldenburg) is affordable at some 95 EuroCents to 1.80 Euros for 120mm chromes archived in best quality.
Best of all: in Germany the film costs are considerably lower than down here in Spain... I know what I'm talking about because my last assignment led me to Bremen in Decemer 2006/January 2007.
Could it be you just want to put us on or entertain us with fake horror stories?
This thread sounds like a PNet thread with all the rudeness displayed. I'm disappointed in the poor behaviour of several posters. This isn't what RFF should be like. Let's drop the personal attacks.
toyotadesigner
04-22-2007, 08:47
Well environmental regulations won't killed film as manufacturing can move to countries with less stringent regs. However if the price of silver where to skyrocket (it has risen astronmically already in the past 5 years) as some precious metal speculators are predicting it could push the price of a roll of silver based film up into the stratosphere.
Yes and no. Large labs recycle the silver from any film. b&w have most of the silver, neg and slide films only a fraction of it. Even mini labs recycle silver these days.
But do you know how many grams are in one roll of let's say chromes? R&D didn't stop at film, so the silver part in color films is a lot less than 10 years ago. Even if the price for silver should skyrocket it wouldn't have a great impact on film costs. Silver is responsible for only some 15% of the manufacturing costs of film. The rest is a pricing strategy based on the misleading information of the customers.
dazedgonebye
04-22-2007, 08:50
This thread sounds like a PNet thread with all the rudeness displayed. I'm disappointed in the poor behaviour of some posters. This isn't what RFF should be like.
I've felt the same thing on 3 or 4 different occasions this week Frank. Seems to be a creeping lack of civility.
antiquark
04-22-2007, 08:54
Ted, judging from the prints and negs I had processed at the 1 hour at Disneyworld in 1985 I don't think that much of that will be left in 10 years.
I hear that now and then, of old negatives disintegrating. Is that a common occurence, or more of a rarity? Even if it's not common, it's disturbing nontheless.
Well my colleague with SLR showcase seems not to have thought about chromogenic & B&W, but I was not rude about his lapse.
Sad that the interesting threads get flamed.
Noel
And I definitely know that at least Foto Bischoff in the Balgebrückstrasse carries everything for b&w enthusiast as well as slide or chome film. They even offer developing services for b&w, chromes and color.
FoBi is about half an hour walk from my place, they have some Tetenal chemistry left. Same at Photo Dose in the Bahnhofsstrasse.
As I said in my post on Friday night these threads about the death of film are really entertaining.
Look we all have our own opinions on this and every other subject photographic.
It's very simple if, you can buy film then use it. If you like to use film it is available, albeit more difficult to source than 10 years ago or even 5 years. This discourse although very entertaining is a waist of our time. Using one medium over another doesn't make anybody a more "tasteful" or creative photographer, it's what works for them. I recently attended a seminar that featured Dewitt Jones an award winning National Geographic Photographer. He said that the majority of pros have already made the switch to digital because not only had the quality improved, but because it was easier from the processing standpoint. I was amazed that for the typical Geographic shoot they use 400 rolls of film to get about 20-25 shots for the story. This alone according to Dewitt was one of the main reasons that the switch was made.
Dewitt's most profound comments weren't about film vs. digital it was to hone your craft, develop your creativity, see potential shots from different viewpoints and most importantly be ready for the shot. An audience member asked him when shooting film how many "keepers" did he get out of a roll of 36 he replied, "that's the amatuer question, the professional question would be; did you get the shot"?
RFF's go out and get the shot, whatever medium it doesn't matter.
Sherm
Ted, judging from the prints and negs I had processed at the 1 hour at Disneyworld in 1985 I don't think that much of that will be left in 10 years.
I hear that now and then, of old negatives disintegrating. Is that a common occurence, or more of a rarity? Even if it's not common, it's disturbing nontheless.
Not so rare in my experience, but only with early 1 hour lab processed films. Usualy I have my C-41 and E-6 processed at CeWe Color, besides dust and the occasional torn film I have no complains with them.
amateriat
04-22-2007, 10:51
Ted, judging from the prints and negs I had processed at the 1 hour at Disneyworld in 1985 I don't think that much of that will be left in 10 years.
I hear that now and then, of old negatives disintegrating. Is that a common occurence, or more of a rarity? Even if it's not common, it's disturbing nontheless.
This depends. If you're talking really old color negs (say, anything much over 25 years old), there could be a problem with the film itself, sometimes aggravated by mediocre processing and/or indifferent storage techniques. Just as bad old Ektachrome shaped up (E4, and epecially E6), with archival-storage numbers coming within striking distance of Kodachrome, color-neg film has improved quite a bit as well. (Suggestion: even though there are good minilabs here and about, if you're shooting something really impartant, send it to a pro lab with dip/dunk processing, which can help a bit in the longevity department. You're welcome. :))
- Barrett
ChrisPlatt
04-22-2007, 11:46
... An audience member asked him when shooting film how many "keepers" did he get out of a roll of 36 he replied, "that's the amatuer question, the professional question would be; did you get the shot"?
Yep, dodged the question like a *true* professional...
Chris
My day job is off site trials, my management dont ask how, just was it ok... the movie parlance was 'get it in the can'.
Noel
Stephanie Brim
04-22-2007, 12:32
I work at a minilab now and I can tell you that I'm not that fond of our development machine. You really do get what you pay for and, though I do my best with what I have, sometimes film still doesn't turn out like it should. We still send out at request, and I send my own in to Kodak.
Thanks to 100ds of people shooting digital, the Photo Dose in our main train station has an Agfa Minilab which is connected to a couple terminals/kiosks to process digital, but they do film, too. Usualy I have enough time and have my film processed the next day. One of the technicians told me that they clean the mashine in the evening when they close shop and when they start it up in the morning they calibrate it and get the best quality out of the processor.
Right, I'm going to say this once more, and then I'm going to ignore you until you demonstrate some reading comprehension.
Here is my first post again:
My only point was that as a mainstream general consumer format in the West (the words are all there in the orignal post, but it seems I have to emphasise them again and again), film is in steep decline, and will quite soon be dead. All of the replies about how film is better than digital, artists like film more than digital, etc etc, are entirely irrelevant to this very simple point.
You've made a claim that film sales are as high or higher than they were 20 years ago. I merely asked, reasonably enough, for some substantiation of that claim, because, if it is true, then the entire photographic industry is suffering from a mass delusion when they base their long term strategies on the demise of film as anything other than a niche format for a small minority of enthusiasts and art photographers.
Anyway, you seem to prefer to raise straw man arguments arguing against things I haven't said rather than addressing the points I actually have raised, so I can't see any point prolonging this discussion.
Ian
This is at least the second time you've been insulting. I did not make any claim about film sales. I made a statement regarding availability. I see Kodak Gold pretty much anywhere you can buy a pack of gum. You have yet to address that fact, or provide any data of any kind.
I've made an effort to directly address your points. You keep repeating comments about my reading ability. I'm not sure how that's productive.
You keep emphasizing the scope of your claim. I happen to live in what you call "the industrialized West." I'm not seeing the things you are seeing. Perhaps it's my perspective.
There is a concept in debate - the side that attacks the opponent instead of the argument has already lost.
NickTrop
04-22-2007, 13:17
Silly argument...
25 years ago, you could get Super8 movie film at the pharmacy. Afordable VHS consumer video cameras came out how many year ago, now? 20ish? For making home movies, this technology was superior in every way to the film technology it displaced.
Two years ago:
40th Anniversary of Super 8 film
Kodak celebrates 40th anniversary of super 8 film announces new color reversal product to portfolio
ROCHESTER, NY, May 9 -From its beginnings as the home movie medium of the 1960s, Super 8 film is alive and well, and serving a vital segment of today's filmmaking industry.
Eastman Kodak Company remains committed to providing Super 8 camera users a range of products and creative choices. As such, Kodak has added a new color reversal film to its Super 8 portfolio-the super-saturated, fine grain KODAK EKTACHROME 64T Color Reversal Film 7280 will be available in August of this year.
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/about/news/super8.jhtml
------------------------------
You no longer can get Super 8 movie film at the corner pharmacy. But you can still get it without issue, still get it processed, Kodak came out with a new line of color reversal Super 8 two years ago, and it costs are probably comparable to what it costs ($17 at B&H) when it was "king" - the only game in town, taking inflation into account.
We're talkin soundless "Super 8" movie film people. Who uses this stuff that costs $17 for three minutes with mini-DV cameras costing around $300? Lord only knows - film students perhaps? Dunno, but it's big enough a market for Kodak to keep it going.
Don't worry about 35mm or 120... please.
And furthermore:
2004 article:
Some 222 million one-time-use cameras, typically purchased in drug stores, markets and big-box retailers by cost-conscious consumers, will be sold this year in the United States, up from 211 million in 2003, according to estimates from the Photo Marketing Association, and industry trade group.
Consumers are drawn to the point-and-shoot cameras which are little more than rolls of film equipped with a simple lens and flash, and encased in plastic. At around $10 each, they are handy when one needs to take a picture but does not have a camera.
They are also seen as reliable and safe, in an age where digital photography is on the rise. Many consumers still shy away from using the film-free technology to capture important moments, such as vacations and children's birthdays.
That convenience and low price has fueled the segment, which PMA said started around 1987, and whose volume has doubled since 1998. Eastman Kodak Co. and Fuji Photo Film Co. Ltd., the world's No. 1 and 2 makers of photographic film, both see continued strength in the segment.
"For a consumer product that is relatively mature, that (5 percent) is not bad growth," said Fuji Photo Film USA chief operating officer Stan Freimuth. "The one-time-use camera still has a lot of life in it. We can do very well with them for quite a long time yet to come."
According to PMA, U.S. film sales will fall by 6 percent during 2004, to 767 million rolls. More than 180 million fewer rolls will be sold than in 2000, when film sales peaked at 948 million rolls.
Kodak is hoping that it can still take advantage of demand for one-time use cameras in those regions and growing demand for other film-based cameras - and film -in emerging markets like China, where demand is rising.
Analysts say that despite the slide in film demand, it is still a large market and will remain so because legions of consumers still use the film cameras they already own, while others will never convert to digital photography.
http://in.tech.yahoo.com/040209/137/2bela.html
icemendicant
04-22-2007, 14:00
I agree that over the next few years there will be many changes in the availability of film and the particular brands that are available - but much has been said on this subject and I have little to add there.
The point I would like to make is that much has been said about buying film from shops, but surely the other big change that has been progressing alongside the growth of digital photography is the growth of online shopping.
At the moment, I use more film than I have ever done, and I find it easier to obtain. It takes 5 minutes online at my home or work PC to place an order with 7dayshop or MX2 (for example) and 2 days later my receptionist takes delivery and the parcel is in my mail tray at work. Much better than negotiating with a spotty Saturday salesman in Jessops or other high street shop. Many of my recent gear purchases have been transatlantic, or from Hong Kong - often at very favourable prices.
The point I am trying to make is that while the number of film suppliers and processors may dwindle, we do at least have unprecedented access to a wider range of services worldwide than we have ever had before. Perhaps this will offset some the difficulties we film photographers face in the years to come.
Dan
amateriat
04-22-2007, 14:25
I work at a minilab now and I can tell you that I'm not that fond of our development machine. You really do get what you pay for and, though I do my best with what I have, sometimes film still doesn't turn out like it should. We still send out at request, and I send my own in to Kodak.
Steph: Hi! Great to see you here.
What sort of processing gear do you work with at the lab, and how old is it? I've had a few labs with pretty sad-looking C41 machines, one of which, a year and a half ago, decided to stop working in the middle of running several important rolls (lesson learned; see my earlier thread entry). When I worked for a stock photo agency, one of my jobs was to making color neg-to-slide conversion, and we got so fed-up with turnaround times for testing and such that we ordered and installed a late-model Noritsu processor, which I was put in charge of. Great little machine (and, for some reason, my own percentage of C41-film shooting spiked soon afterward :rolleyes:), but I had to keep a keen eye on those daily conrtol strips, especially on slow weeks. This, along with other general-maintenance matters, is where the rubber meets the road with decent labs vs lame ones. Since you're the more-scrupulous sort, I presume you do what you can within the limitations of equipment and management (my former bosses demanded perfection, which was a green light for me to "micromanage at will"), but dealing with machined that are ill-maintained or needful of parts can be a pain. The fact that you feel compelled to send out your own rolls isn't a great sign.
- Barrett
I work at a minilab now and I can tell you that I'm not that fond of our development machine. You really do get what you pay for and, though I do my best with what I have, sometimes film still doesn't turn out like it should. We still send out at request, and I send my own in to Kodak.
Interesting Stephanie, how would you rate the minilabs in the new Super Wal-Marts and Super Targets? Agreed that some of the older Pharmacies have marginal machines and operators, not to say you are a marginal operator though. I had to "give up" on a K-Mart location, machine kept breaking down and scans were dirty.:(
Out of curiosity, who still makes Minilabs?
Regards.
Out of curiosity, who still makes Minilabs?
Regards.
Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Noritsu are the ones I know. A&O, the company which now makes Rodinal, bought parts of Agfa Photo because they service the Agfa Minilabs. Agfas Minilab production has been bought by Minilabfactory GmbH.
Agfa, Fuji, Kodak and Noritsu are the ones I know. A&O, the company which now makes Rodinal, bought parts of Agfa Photo because they service the Agfa Minilabs. Agfas Minilab production has been bought by Minilabfactory GmbH.
So.......... I thought so ...... there is money to be made. :) Then there's hope for us, maybe. :D '
2004 article:
You need to look at more recent figures, a lot has changed in the last 2 or 3 years. Fujifilm colour film sales were down 17% year on year last year, as this PDF link shows:
http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/pdf/investors/finance/materials/ff_fy_2006q2_001.pdf
A 17% drop in one year is significant, I'm sure you agree.
Kodak, as we all know, has already begun to restructure as primarily a digital company:
http://digital-lifestyles.info/2006/01/31/kodaks-digital-revenue-snaps-past-film-sales/
I'm not arguing that film will disappear (I've repeatedly said the exact opposite), but, as the mainstream consumer format, film is on the way out. This seems to me an unexceptional point to make, just self-evident from the state of the industry. Film availability is neither here nor there, not relevant to the basic argument, which is, that for most people, in most parts of the world, in the next few years, photography will be a solely digital technology, and anyone shooting film will be in a very small niche.
Ian
NickTrop
04-23-2007, 04:23
You need to look at more recent figures, a lot has changed in the last 2 or 3 years. Fujifilm colour film sales were down 17% year on year last year, as this PDF link shows:
http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/pdf/investors/finance/materials/ff_fy_2006q2_001.pdf
A 17% drop in one year is significant, I'm sure you agree.
Kodak, as we all know, has already begun to restructure as primarily a digital company:
http://digital-lifestyles.info/2006/01/31/kodaks-digital-revenue-snaps-past-film-sales/
I'm not arguing that film will disappear (I've repeatedly said the exact opposite), but, as the mainstream consumer format, film is on the way out. This seems to me an unexceptional point to make, just self-evident from the state of the industry. Film availability is neither here nor there, not relevant to the basic argument, which is, that for most people, in most parts of the world, in the next few years, photography will be a solely digital technology, and anyone shooting film will be in a very small niche.
Ian
It's already out as the mainstream consumer format, been that way since 2004. To which I say "who cares"? Bill O'Reilly is the #1 cable news talking head. You won't catch me tuning in to that moron blowhard. Football's the #1 sport, I prefer hockey. What percent of the population has more John Coltrane CDs than Britney Spears? Who cares about the mainstream? I don't. Wii is the #1 gaming system, but there's plenty of PS3s being sold. There's room in the market for both. Your thread is titled "film is dying, being killed" or some such.
Where I completely disagree is that "in the next few years, photography will be a solely digital technology, and anyone shooting film will be a very small niche". This is because:
1. Sales of Disposable Cameras
2. Huge film install base (my dad, in his 70's ain't about to "go digital")
3. Developing markets like China (digital cameras require a large up-front outlay compared to film cameras. Most also buy the computers, pirate the software, printers, inks, etc...)
4. People who simple won't "go digital" because they "sit in front of a computer all day, and are interested in the traditional means of photography as a hobby".
5. Student market
6. 35mm film sales are well into the hundreds of millions of rolls, round 1/2 a billion. Even if this erodes to 200 million at $5.00 a roll, figuring 50% margin, I'm sure some company would be willing to take that business. And talk about customer loyalty!
In a "few years" I don't see much change, personally. To me, a "very small niche" is people who shoot the still being made "Super 8". That's a "very small niche" not 35mm film. There are huge advantages in cost, quality, sound capability of home video/digital movie cameras which "nearly" killed that market. Digital "advantages"? For my money I don't really see any over a traditional film-based print. In fact I see as many disadvantages biggest being "they're no fun at all".
There's actually an overabundance of stocks available, and though I hate to see any of those go away (even the ones I don't use), I'm sure that will be the case. I expect it will be about the same as it is now, some more films and film players to disappear, but there will be generally the same availability. I don't think film will sustain 17% reduction in sales, year after year in a linear regression down to zero.
As far as black and white 120 print film, I run around shooting black and white 120 film with an old folder or a Kiev 60, develop my own (mostly), and print my own (mostly). There's enough of us, plus pros to keep the market going. I don't think "digital" erroded this niche (my niche) very much. (Hey! You mean I don't have to buy film, load it 12 exposures at a time into a Jobo tank to develop it, futz with all these chemicals, and spend hours in near darkness to get a print? I don have to do dat wit digital? Wow! 'mazin! Wait here while I run out and buy one!)
What I somewhat resent (not you) are these idiot consumers who seem "thrilled" at the idear that film will disappear. Huh? Not going to play armchair psychologist, but there's something going on in dere brainz wit dat.
Beautiful. Thank you Nick!
What I somewhat resent (not you) are these idiot consumers who seem "thrilled" at the idear that film will disappear. Huh? Not going to play armchair psychologist, but there's something going on in dere brainz wit dat.
schadenfreude \SHOD-n-froy-duh\, noun:
A malicious satisfaction obtained from the misfortunes of others. :(
After satisfying their "digital itch" many have "Buyer's Remorse" and need to "feel good". :D
Regards.
tedwhite
04-23-2007, 20:50
"Schadenfreude." Actually knew the meaning, learned it somehow in grad school. The problem is how to slip it into the conversation stream at the appropriate moment tomorrow morning at the coffee shop in Bisbee, Arizona.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.