Old 10-05-2017   #81
Aristophanes
Registered User
 
Aristophanes is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 802
Quote:
Originally Posted by mani View Post
I see evidence all around me of much more film interest than when I began using film 6 or so years ago: at the tech startup I work at I have two colleagues who've recently started using film; at my kids' school there are parents who've switched (and unfortunately started badgering me with questions about scanners and labs, and so on). One of those dads told me about his friend whose daughter goes to the same gym class as my daughter who's recently bought a film Leica.
Another dad whose kids used to go to the same nursery as my kids has become a fanatical film user - even developing his own film. I met him in the crush of the latest film-camera 'yard sale' I was at in March - there were thousands of people at that event, mostly younger people.
I mentor at one of Sweden's leading tech schools, and I'm amazed at how many students are using film cameras. None of them are using DSLRs (it's either iPhone or film).
When I go to the lab with my film these days, I almost always have to stand in line. That never used to happen 5 years ago.
After my vacation I got my films developed for a lower price, in return for waiting longer than a week - because the workload was just too much for the lab at the time.
New films being released almost all the time at the moment. Looking forward to Ektachrome soon.
Also looking forward to getting my Kickstarter LabBox - have to wait a bit longer, because of delays due to the overwhelming over-subscription.
Been trying to get hold of a couple film cameras that I chose not to buy 3 or 4 years back - but since then the price has spiraled crazily upwards.

Anyways, carry on thinking "there hasn't been an analog resurgence" if the negativity makes you feel better.
It's just math

industrial film production to keep prices at the historical expectations from 0 years ago would require industrial film consumption.

The latter requires a staggering film resurgence, in the billions of $$$ per year more than what we see now. When an industry has so much oversupply and industrial capacity, all current users have to pay t keep the excess capacity lights on. This is not an industry that can downscale readily.

In North America the decline in labs continues, and the same is said for most of East Asia. The lab market is turning almost exclusively into a salvage market, too, where used machines prevent any new lab processors from being made. Frontier and Fuji have effectively shut their lines down. Without mass production, prices for film stay high. Without mass consumption facilitated by expanding, not contracting lab access, the price of film + processing stays high, and both are likely to climb higher.

Lomo once had a full locale-driven website to get people to buy their film and process at a local lab, but the main feedback they encountered was that film prices + processing were too high. This led to negative publicity to Lomo took that web portal down. Selling a $90 camera and then having your consumer confronted with each roll costing $9 and processing + scanning + printing costing another $17 was a hard sell.

Camera pricing represents a salvage market, not a consumption market. We've seen the exact same in out of production cars, like VW Beetles etc. Film has massive oversupply capacity, the end consumer having tp pick up those hot idle costs, and the camera market is losing product to disrepair at an accelerating rate (lots of academic literature on that phenomenon) leading to rising salvage market (read: "collectible") costs.

Sorry, there is no effective film resurgence. IN the last 2 years in the US and Canada tens of thousands of local labs have been shuttered. That is how you measure demand. By the end use access where the last bit of $$$ crosses the counter. In the last 6 months in my country a 900 store chain quietly eliminated all in-store processing labs. They only do website digital photo printing now. The last 3 remaining store chains that still offer lab processing are about to do the same.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #82
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
And if you make color images like me, add another $12 a roll for processing and you're talking a serious chunk of dough over the course of a year. When I got out of film about 10 years ago, I calculated that I was spending roughly $2000 a year on film and processing... for using 2 rolls a week. And that doesn't include the additional costs of printing. Now I spend about $800 a year on ink.
And how many thousand $$ on a digital camera that you replace how often? Are you sure digital saves you money?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #83
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 69
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
And how many thousand $$ on a digital camera that you replace how often? Are you sure digital saves you money?

I shoot both but if I`m covering an event I use digital .
Typical 800 + shots a day and that`s single shots.
With HP5 costing £5-7 plus processing in the UK I`ll leave you to do the film maths.

Yes it saves you money and no I don`t change digital cameras that often.
I`ve just ordered ten more rolls of HP5 .... that`s $67.35 and Ilford is only 60 miles down the road from me .
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #84
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calzone View Post
Jamie,

Granted that I stockpile to eventually save money by exploiting sales and buying in bulk, but I have spent $10K in a year for paper and ink to print digitally.

For me neither analog or digital is inexpensive. Know that I'm a B&W shooter to save on costs, and I use Piezography to print B&W. Also I tend to print large.

Cal
WOW! OK... no more complaining on my part!
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X-H1; X-Pro1; XF10; Polaroid 250 (waiting for an 'art' project)

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #85
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
And how many thousand $$ on a digital camera that you replace how often? Are you sure digital saves you money?
You should've seen my film camera collection before I stopped! Nikon, Leica, Mamiya... on and on.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X-H1; X-Pro1; XF10; Polaroid 250 (waiting for an 'art' project)

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #86
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,489
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
I shoot both but if I`m covering an event I use digital .
Typical 800 + shots a day and that`s single shots.
With HP5 costing £5-7 plus processing in the UK I`ll leave you to do the film maths.

Yes it saves you money and no I don`t change digital cameras that often.
I`ve just ordered ten more rolls of HP5 .... that`s $67.35 and Ilford is only 60 miles down the road from me .
The local dealer has HP5 at $5.59 ea for a 135/36 roll + 9% tax.

Seems you are paying more than we are in the states?
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #87
giganova
Registered User
 
giganova is offline
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 1,432
Plus, you can develop b&w film for under $1/roll.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #88
x-ray
Registered User
 
x-ray's Avatar
 
x-ray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Tennessee USA
Age: 71
Posts: 4,625
I went to an old 1960 US camera magazine I have an checked some film prices and ran then through the inflation calculator.

In 1960 Kodachrome was almost always sold with processing mailers from Kodak. 3 rolls of 35mm 36 exp Kodachrome With Kodak processing and mounting ran $4.25/roll if you bought 3 at a time so the total was $12.75. The high end for the same film and processing was just under $15 for 3 36's. Run $4.25 in the inflation calculator and you get a penny shy of $40 per roll with processing. That's certainly no bargain by today's standard.

Fujichrome provia runs about $11-12 per roll and processing about the same.

I found an off brand 4x5 300 asa B&W film in 100 sh boxes for $7.49. That figures up to just shy of $70 today.

Edit: checking freestyle for Arista 400 ISO 4x5 in 50 sheet boxes it runs $39 so basically $78 for 100 sheets. Really not that different.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #89
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 68
Posts: 1,064
I remember as a kid, shooting only B&W because color was so expensive. Then, it seems, color became less expensive and processing through Photo-Mats became less expensive, so we started shooting color. I don't think it was ever cheap; it was just an accepted expense. Film and processing were probably at their lowest, price-wise, just before digital, but still not cheap by today's digital standards.

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-05-2017   #90
PKR
Registered User
 
PKR is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 2,489
Some film, paper, chemistry and photo gear prices from early 80s.
https://books.google.com/books?id=fu...0price&f=false


z
__________________
The camera is an instrument that teaches people how to see without a camera. Dorothea Lange
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #91
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie Pillers View Post
WOW! OK... no more complaining on my part!
Jamie,

I did not take your post as a complaint. I made my specific remark because everyone is different.

I admire large format, and I try to emulate the resolution, detail, and tonality. While Piezography inks are less costly than Epson OEM I likely lay down about twice the amount of ink. The tonality has to come from somewhere.

Also I tend to print a lot and mucho big. My 7800 has these oversized carts that hold perhaps 300-350 ml, and when I'm printing 20x30's on 24x36 I have to top off and refill my carts every two weeks. Basically I removed the doors that cover the carts because they just dangle open and are useless. A 50 foot roll of paper is only 16 prints.

It is kinda crazy. LOL.

Mark Cuban says, "Go big; or don't go." LOL.

Everybody is different.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #92
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
I'm in the process of loading up the truck with Rollie 400S. This is a modern film under current production. In 120 the cost is kinda high, but in 70mm for some unknown reason it is remarkably inexpensive; under $3.00 a roll of 120 equiv.

So why does Rollie 400S cost about $8.00 a roll of 120 at B&H, when I can buy bulk from MacroDirect in 70 mm for under $3.00 per 120 equive? Perhaps lack of packaging and backing???

So Rollie 400S is said to be rebranded Agfapan Super 200. My film testing in 120 suggests that the real film speed is really a 125-160 ISO film.

So now I'm back to Freestyle like pricing, but I'm shooting 6x7 and 645 in Baby Linhof's utilizing Linhof CINE's that allow loading 15 feet of film so I can shoot medium format like a Leica, but have over 60 6x7's or over 120 645's without having to reload.

So what the rig weighs 7 to 7 1/2 pounds. The firepower and the low cost of film is worth it to me. With every Linhof sold you get a free gym membership. LOL.

For me this is the best deal in town if you shoot B&W.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #93
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 926
Cal,
Given that you have a too Linhof to arms&handa ratio, I volunteer for carrying and shooting one whenever I show up in NY. 😂

On the topic, I'm having a few days out and decided (well my 35mms kicked the bucket) to carry my Fuji GW to Malta.
Realised that I haven't travelled abroad with it yet. MF I think is more suited to more controlled conditions than travel snapshooting. 6x9 does make rolls short and the film & processing is interesting cost wise in color.
Gotta move to analog b&w whenever I finally move out of my town.

The cost analysis is funny comparing how a 2h return flight in a LCC costs about a propack of 120 film, without processing (or checked in baggage).

With the thoughts of shooting film and travel I was surprised that my bank account hadn't empied as I expected! Nice surprise when I thought I had 200 less.
Just thoughts making me feel poor!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #94
J enea
Registered User
 
J enea is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
Cal,

....On the topic, I'm having a few days out and decided (well my 35mms kicked the bucket) to carry my Fuji GW to Malta.
Realised that I haven't travelled abroad with it yet. MF I think is more suited to more controlled conditions than travel snapshooting. 6x9 does make rolls short and the film & processing is interesting cost wise in color.
Gotta move to analog b&w whenever I finally move out of my town.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I hear you there. I made a day trip to the ancient bristle cone pine forest and did the 4.5 mile Methuselah trail hike, at 10,000 feet ( realized after the fact that you should apply facial sunscreen every hour at that altitude!). I brought along my fuji gsw680 for black and white. Maybe I shot like I had a 35mm camera because of the rare location for me, but I wound up shooting over 17 rolls of B&W film on that walk along with 5 rolls of 220 velvia in my mamiya 6. I was a hassle to change rolls every 9 shots, but there were so many awesome shots to be had. I'm sure I would have shot more had I brought more film with ,e, but my shorts were overflowing with film. Boy do I miss 220 B&W

I'm sure there are going to be shots that maybe I should not have taken, and yes ut was a lot of film, but when i get home from yosemite Im sure the results will justify what I did, and to me thats all that matters
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #95
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
Cal,
Given that you have a too Linhof to arms&handa ratio, I volunteer for carrying and shooting one whenever I show up in NY. 😂

On the topic, I'm having a few days out and decided (well my 35mms kicked the bucket) to carry my Fuji GW to Malta.
Realised that I haven't travelled abroad with it yet. MF I think is more suited to more controlled conditions than travel snapshooting. 6x9 does make rolls short and the film & processing is interesting cost wise in color.
Gotta move to analog b&w whenever I finally move out of my town.

The cost analysis is funny comparing how a 2h return flight in a LCC costs about a propack of 120 film, without processing (or checked in baggage).

With the thoughts of shooting film and travel I was surprised that my bank account hadn't empied as I expected! Nice surprise when I thought I had 200 less.
Just thoughts making me feel poor!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jorde,

I've been paying the around $8.00 a roll for Rollie 400S to do my testing. I will likely secure a JOBO 3063 Expert tank and cut it down to fit at least 2 if not the three 15 foot slainless steel reels. In 6x7 15 feet is at least 63 6x7's plus a few bonus frames. It takes 1 1/2 liters of developer to cover just one reel, so basically it will be a big inversion tank.

Understand that a JOBO 3063 is the processing drum for up to a 20x24 inch print.

I have been using my Plaubel 69W proshift with a 47/5.6 Super Augulon that has a 21mm FOV to do my eight shots for testing. The Plaubel at least is easy to load.

Diane Arbus use to carry three Rollies in a knapsack to avoid missing shots due to reloading. The Rollie 400S has a IR sensitivity so loading in the shade is highly important. Tends to light-pipe.

My neck is thick and oversized for an otherwise skinny guy. In a way it makes me look like a monster. My right arm is accually deformed and is about an inch longer than my left from carrying cameras. The Linhof's have a left handed grip so now I'll be adding a further deformity to my left arm.

I somehow recently jammed a shutter on a F5, but I still have many other 35mm SLR's and of course multiple M-bodies.

For others who do not have "Linhof Disease" the cheap way to go 70mm is with a Blad. 70 mm backs are $40.00-$50.00. Check out Dan's thread for more info.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #96
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by J enea View Post
I hear you there. I made a day trip to the ancient bristle cone pine forest and did the 4.5 mile Methuselah trail hike, at 10,000 feet ( realized after the fact that you should apply facial sunscreen every hour at that altitude!). I brought along my fuji gsw680 for black and white. Maybe I shot like I had a 35mm camera because of the rare location for me, but I wound up shooting over 17 rolls of B&W film on that walk along with 5 rolls of 220 velvia in my mamiya 6. I was a hassle to change rolls every 9 shots, but there were so many awesome shots to be had. I'm sure I would have shot more had I brought more film with ,e, but my shorts were overflowing with film. Boy do I miss 220 B&W

I'm sure there are going to be shots that maybe I should not have taken, and yes ut was a lot of film, but when i get home from yosemite Im sure the results will justify what I did, and to me thats all that matters
J,

You did the right thing. I only have one roll of Velvia 50 left in 220 that someone had gifted me. I shot the other 4 rolls of Velvia when here in NYC they had "Fashion Night Out." The idea was to set up my Pentax 67 II with the AE prism and grip with my 75/2.8 AL and use the AFZ-500 the most powerful dedicated flash to exploit the TTL from the AE prism.

Basically I assembled a stun gun and went out to blind people out on Fifth Avenue when it got dark. LOL.

All the guys from the NYC Meet-Up told me to shoot Tri-X and warned me that Velvia was the most difficult film to shoot because it is so unforgiving, but at the next Meet-Up I showed them all the perfectly exposed slides. LOL. Boy am I a jerk. LOL.

I was across the street from Berdof's when I saw Nellie the bar maid from Puck Fair, where we had our Meet-Ups. I learned that she also was a model, and she was with four of her model friends. So I think to myself, "Is this my dream come true?"

So of course I shot them. I ended up giving those shots to Nellie at the next Meet-Up. What a pretty girl.

Across the street the live model in the Berdof window gave me a snotty look. It seems she took exception that another photographer was more interested in photographing me and my rig than her. LOL.

You can't make this stuff up. BTW I'm kinda famous for annoying people. Why do I have so many friends? LOL.

Way back there was a rumor on RFF that Kodak 320 was going to be discontinued. I ran down to B&H after work to try and hoard all the Tri-X 320 in 220, but someone beat me to it.

I raced down to Adorama and basically pulled out the plastic card with the magic numbers to buy the entire stock of Tri-X 320 in 220. It was one of the smartest things I ever did.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #97
Michael Markey
Registered User
 
Michael Markey's Avatar
 
Michael Markey is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Blackpool ,England
Age: 69
Posts: 4,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by PKR View Post
The local dealer has HP5 at $5.59 ea for a 135/36 roll + 9% tax.

Seems you are paying more than we are in the states?
Yes .... I think that`s always been the case .... probably tax .
That`s the cheapest I could find it ..... Amazon of course.

Ps .... it a bit cheaper from this store.

http://www.mathersoflancashire.co.uk...x?cid=0&id=108
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #98
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
Interesting enough lately I have received 4 rolls of Ferrania P30 even though I was not one of the original kink starters.

One of my friends gifted me two rolls and then another.

Another friend gifted me a roll, but to reciprocate upon our next meeting I gifted him a roll of Kodak 5222, even though I didn't have to. Know that I had access to P30 before many of the original Kickstarters who waited a long time. LOL.

Anyways free film is always special. Take note of what happened above when someone gifted me 5 rolls of Velvia 50 in 220.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-06-2017   #99
J enea
Registered User
 
J enea is offline
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 167
I had a friend who went to japan on business and told him to buy me all the velvia 50 in 220 he could find. He came back in 2015 with 12 pro packs. I was expecting 2 or 3, so .....

it really comes in handy with the new fuji 617 I bought
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2017   #100
Prest_400
Multiformat
 
Prest_400's Avatar
 
Prest_400 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden/Spain
Posts: 926
IIRC there is just Velvia 100 left in 220. It is amusingly strange that the last film standing in that format is not a C41 400 film. A bit OT, but a year ago, 160NS in Japan had all formats while US had none!
I just have a single pack frozen that I bought for some future trip. 220 seems a good idea while traveling.

Price wise I was thinking about Fomapan. The cheaper sources now basically have similar prices to what was the norm years ago. Good to shoot around and it was my idea for cutting my teeth on B&W.

Develop only and scan at home does keep costs a lot down processing wise, might do that with my trip shots. Though a flatbed kills a bit the spirit of medium format.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2017   #101
mani
Registered User
 
mani is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stockholm
Posts: 770
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
It's just math

industrial film production to keep prices at the historical expectations from 0 years ago would require industrial film consumption.

The latter.... .
Hi Aristophanes - while I appreciate you taking the time to write your very long post - I’m afraid I can’t be bothered to read it.. thanks anyway for all your negative effort. I’m gonna continue enjoying what I plainly see to be a significant increase in film-interest all around me and online. Clearly never a return to the mass-market scale before digital, but a healthy, thriving and exciting niche (that’s destined to outlast the DSLR market).
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2017   #102
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by giganova View Post
Here is a plot I found on the Internet. Tri-X went up 500% over the past 6 years!

As the others already have explained, the data here is wrong.
There has never been regular, original and fresh TX 400 for only 1$ / roll.

And concerning your FP4+ / B&H chart:
The latest price increase is probably because of the recent, unexpected insolvency of Ilford's US distributor.
So B&H probably has currently higher costs in getting Ilford, because the established former distribution chain is not working anymore.
Ilford is currently looking for a new, competent US distributer (wholesale).

In general:
I have price lists of films from different major markets of the last decades.
In lots of cases film is even cheaper today compared to 20 - 30 years ago if you consider inflation (which must be done for an economically correct analysis).
In some cases it is in line with inflation.
And in a few cases it is a bit more compared to former times.

But in general the overall costs for shooting film are very low / lower compared to former times, because developing costs are lower today, and the film gear is much cheaper today.
You can get professional gear for next to nothing.
Yet.
Of course used gear prices will rise in the future because of increasing interest - especially from young people - in using film.
So now is still a very good time to build a complete camera system of your favourite camera(s).

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2017   #103
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
Because there hasn't been an analog resurgence.
Your usual facts ignoring comment about that topic.

For years you are telling us here that film is doomed, that film companies will collapse, that there will be less film choices in the future ....and so on.

But the reality has proven you wrong.
There is indeed a film revival in several major areas. Let's have a look at the facts:
1. Instant film photography is booming for years. Fujifilm Instax has increasing demand each year sind 2004!!
Fujifilm sold about 6.5 million (!!!) Instax cameras in the latest fiscal year. So Fujifilm alone sold more than double (!) Instax cameras than all 10 DSLM manufacturers sold of their DSLM models in 2016 (which were only 3.1 million for the whole global DSLM market).
Fujifilm is prodiucing instant Instax film in three shifts a day, 24h each day to satisfy demand.
They even had to build a new plant to cope with the boom.
And you are telling us there is no revival: How ridiculous!

2. Polaroid films (former Impossible Project) are also booming, with a growth rate of about 20% p.a.
Because of that the main shareholder of Impossible bought Polaroid this spring, invested more and transferred Impossible Project into Polaroid Originals. And they have already a new camera and improved films on the market.

3. Eastman Kodak has hired 10% additional staff for film production. Kodak Alaris is reporting increasing demand for prof. colour film and BW film. And they intend to bring an Ektachrome film back. Why that? Because there is "no analogue resurgence" as you said? No, because they see increasing interest in film.

4. Ilford is reporting increasing demand for their films. Same for Adox, Bergger and Rollei-Films.

5. The big film distributors like B&H, Fotoimpex, ars-imago, Maco etc. are all reporting increasing demand.

6. Lots of succesful film related Kickstarter and Indiegogo projects in the last years. Why? Because there is interest!

7. Adox is doubling their factory space. Film Ferrania is marching on and investing. Would they do that and take all the risks if there is no resurgence as you say? Of course not!
They are building their new plants because their market data is clear and showing rising interest in film.

8. JOBO has introduced two new film processors. Simply because of increasing demand.

9. In your latest post you've said there is no professional lab equipment anymore. That is simply wrong: Professional lab equipment is produced e.g. by Noritsu, Fujifilm, Hostert, Colenta, JOBO.
And there are several specialised companies for refurbishing lab machines. And companies who have enough spare parts for decades.
There are even several manufacturers (most from Asia) which are now producing new spare parts for Agfa, Fuji and Noritsu machines.
I've seen them and their products at the last Photokinas (biggest photo fair in the world).

10. The next week a new 'brick and mortar', physical shop for
- used photo film cameras
- used small format film cameras (S8, 16mm)
- repairs of all these cameras (with a young repair specialist)
will open in Berlin:
http://clickundsurr.de/
Why? Increasing demand.

11. Recently a new camera store (Leistenschneider) opened in Frankfurt. Mainly a digital store.
But:
They also offer the complete film programmes of Fujifilm, Ilford and Kodak Alaris on big shelves!
And not only that, but also photo chemistry and lab goods for self-developing.
Would they do that if there is no new interest in film?

That are only some aspects. There are more indicators for the fact that we are in the beginning phase of a film revival (in instant photography we are already in a full boom).

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2017   #104
Aristophanes
Registered User
 
Aristophanes is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 802
There is no film resurgence.

What you see is that as the savage market reduces due to breakage, minot production steps in, bit nowhere near the industrial scale necessary.

Fuji's Instax is a novelty item and is categorized as "toy" in many manufacturer data sets.

The financial of all the public equity holders for film productions are negative towards demand. The roll film market has reduced by 99.999999%. A 0.0000001% pip is not a resurgence by any commonly accepted accounting nor equity principles.

The market has shrunk so much it's been dropped entirely for both manufacturer and industrial data sets and as well for retail profiling. The market for film is now so tiny it has zero investment profile. Instax cameras are eve in the "toy" category now.

There is no film resurgence. Show macroeconomic data from trusted sources using equity measures to prove. Your anecdotes don't make up for the complete evisceration of the film product from the balance sheets and supply catalogues.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-07-2017   #105
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
There is no film resurgence.

What you see is that as the savage market reduces due to breakage, minot production steps in, bit nowhere near the industrial scale necessary.
All the film manufacturers are producing films. So the necessary industrial scale is there, the demand high enough to successfully produce films.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
Fuji's Instax is a novelty item and is categorized as "toy" in many manufacturer data sets.
Instax was introduced in 1998. It is an old and established product. And it has increasing demand since 2004. So for 13 years, and still increasing.
A much longer boom phase than digital cameras had!
Maybe it is a toy for you. But not for others.
And fact is, that much much more like this product compared to DSLM cameras. The type you always told would be the most successful......reality has proven you wrong, again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
The financial of all the public equity holders for film productions are negative towards demand. The roll film market has reduced by 99.999999%. A 0.0000001% pip is not a resurgence by any commonly accepted accounting nor equity principles.
The numbers are completely wrong.
And by the way:
- Ilford got new investors in 2015; Why have they invested? Because of the positive outlook of the film revival.
- Impossible got an new investor in 2014 for the same reason, this investor bought also Polaroid this spring.
- Fujifilm has invested millions in new production capacity; Fujfilm is making much more money with its silver-halide photo products compared to their digital photo products.
- Kodak has invested in new products and staff.
- Film Ferrania is investing.
- Adox is doubling its factory.
- Bergger has invested in new products.

Fact is, investors and companies are putting money in that market. Because their analyses are showing them positive outlooks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
The market has shrunk so much it's been dropped entirely for both manufacturer and industrial data sets and as well for retail profiling. The market for film is now so tiny it has zero investment profile. Instax cameras are eve in the "toy" category now.
Again wrong. There is data. But you don't have it. You have to pay for the data. And it's expensive. Therefore of course those who have paid for it will not publish it and give it away for free this way.
Concerning investments, see above: Lots of different investments in this market.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2017   #106
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,697
Your viewpoint depends on your definition of resurgence. Differrent definitions cause people to talk past one another.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2017   #107
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,700
Quote:
Originally Posted by ptpdprinter View Post
Your viewpoint depends on your definition of resurgence. Differrent definitions cause people to talk past one another.
Well, if
- a 13 long growth phase (Instax)
- 6.5 million sold Instax cameras (more than double compared to the whole DSLM market)
- production of dozens of million instant film packs, production 24h each day, a new, bigger factory needed (Instax)
- new instax films - BW and square
- growth rates of 10-20 p.a. for about 5 years (Impossible/Polaroid)
- a growth rates of 10-40% p.a. in film distribution (several specialised film distributors in Europe)
- a growth of 10 - 45% p.a. in certain markets (Ilford, Rollei-Film, Adox)
- a significant growth in youtube videos focussing on film (lots of by young digital photographers who now also enjoy shooting film, e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWPUD3F-jFE )
- permanent articles in digital photo magazines about the new interest in film
- lots of companies investing in new film (related) products
and so on......

is not a resurgence, then what is / should be a resurgence?

Of course the revival has different strenghts and speeds in diferent areas and markets.
But you have to be blind to not see there is really something going on and changing in the market in favour of film.

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2017   #108
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,337
Supply and demand aren't necessarily linked.

Supply can be artificially limited by the manufacturers.

Niche markets are vulnerable because... well they have no other option.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-08-2017   #109
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,382
The economic message here is that film prices do indeed reflect the market's increasing popularity and sales. If there is a product that people want, but not much of it, they will pay whatever it takes to get it, within reason. If something is dirt cheap but no one wants to use it, then they couldn't give it away.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-09-2017   #110
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Supply and demand aren't necessarily linked.

Supply can be artificially limited by the manufacturers.
Irrelevant for our case.
Because supply is definitely not limited by the film manufacturers.
After many hard years they are of cause happy now that the demand is significantly getting better step by step, year after year.
And they are producing in-line with that, satisfying the increasing demand.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-09-2017   #111
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Well, if
- a 13 long growth phase (Instax)
- 6.5 million sold Instax cameras (more than double compared to the whole DSLM market)
- production of dozens of million instant film packs, production 24h each day, a new, bigger factory needed (Instax)
- new instax films - BW and square
There should be one extremely important fact added:

Fujifilm is now selling more instant cameras p.a. than Polaroid has sold even in their best, golden times !!
So this is much more than a "resurgence" or a "revival":
It is a complete new era.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-09-2017   #112
valdas
Registered User
 
valdas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,462
Everything is logical if you look at all factors - i.e. not only at supply/demand in quantitative sense, but also at elasticity at both ends...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-09-2017   #113
Faintandfuzzy
Registered User
 
Faintandfuzzy's Avatar
 
Faintandfuzzy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 402
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Markey View Post
Yes .... I think that`s always been the case .... probably tax .
That`s the cheapest I could find it ..... Amazon of course.

Ps .... it a bit cheaper from this store.

http://www.mathersoflancashire.co.uk...x?cid=0&id=108
Using the inflation calculator fom that Shutterbug link from Oct 1983...a roll of Ilford HP5 for 36 exp, was $2.60 back then...and should be $6.41 now. So in this case, the film is cheaper in 2017 than it was in 1983.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2017   #114
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by J enea View Post
I had a friend who went to japan on business and told him to buy me all the velvia 50 in 220 he could find. He came back in 2015 with 12 pro packs. I was expecting 2 or 3, so .....

it really comes in handy with the new fuji 617 I bought
Wow. That was very smart. What a great film.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2017   #115
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
As the others already have explained, the data here is wrong.
There has never been regular, original and fresh TX 400 for only 1$ / roll.

And concerning your FP4+ / B&H chart:
The latest price increase is probably because of the recent, unexpected insolvency of Ilford's US distributor.
So B&H probably has currently higher costs in getting Ilford, because the established former distribution chain is not working anymore.
Ilford is currently looking for a new, competent US distributer (wholesale).

In general:
I have price lists of films from different major markets of the last decades.
In lots of cases film is even cheaper today compared to 20 - 30 years ago if you consider inflation (which must be done for an economically correct analysis).
In some cases it is in line with inflation.
And in a few cases it is a bit more compared to former times.

But in general the overall costs for shooting film are very low / lower compared to former times, because developing costs are lower today, and the film gear is much cheaper today.
You can get professional gear for next to nothing.
Yet.
Of course used gear prices will rise in the future because of increasing interest - especially from young people - in using film.
So now is still a very good time to build a complete camera system of your favourite camera(s).

Cheers, Jan
Jan,

Film gear is certainly cheap. Recently bought a 1958 Linhof 2x3 Tech IV in shelf queen condition for $800.00. Came with a 100/2.8 Zeiss Planar that the seller was clear about having a separation issue. Send the lens to John at Focal Point for repair. Cost only $250.00 for the repair.

Crazy prices.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2017   #116
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,337
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiff View Post
Irrelevant for our case.
Because supply is definitely not limited by the film manufacturers.
After many hard years they are of cause happy now that the demand is significantly getting better step by step, year after year.
And they are producing in-line with that, satisfying the increasing demand.
Fine.

Then how come supply and demand economics do not apply to film pricing?
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2017   #117
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 967
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Fine.

Then how come supply and demand economics do not apply to film pricing?
Well, they do apply to film.
As explained by several other members here in the thread, the stats posted by the OP are wrong.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2017   #118
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by willie_901 View Post
Fine.

Then how come supply and demand economics do not apply to film pricing?
Willie,

It seems like CatLabs the big JOBO distributor will also be getting into Polaroid, I think by their relationship with Berger. They have a link that explains why Fuji cannot sustain production of FP-100 because Fuji can only make profit by exploiting "economies of scale." It is further explained that the manufacturing equipment for FP-100 utilizes older technology that is not scalable.

I'll try to find those links.

So another possible player in the world of Polaroid...

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2017   #119
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
 
Calzone's Avatar
 
Calzone is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Hell Gate, Madhattan
Age: 61
Posts: 10,238
dated 24 June 2016:

http://www.catlabs.info/we-will-make-packfim.

I had difficulty understanding why Fuji would end/curtail FP-100, but now I understand.

Cal
__________________
"Vintage Hipster"
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-10-2017   #120
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,614
It’s my understanding that CatLabs gave up on a peel-apart Polaroid-type film. Just too difficult and/or too expensive to produce.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 18:30.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.