Film revival - maybe, but not our kind

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Motion picture 35mm film is not what we use, and for good reasons, but here might be some good news to keep part of Kodak alive for a while.

 

Kodak Movie Film, at Death's Door, Gets a Reprieve - WSJ

 

--

[Chuck Albertson]

Not exactly what we use, but Kodak's Portra 160 and 400 still films are derivatives of MP film R&D.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

Not exactly what we use, but Kodak's Portra 160 and 400 still films are derivatives of MP film R&D.

 

Do you know if Kodak has fixed the archival problem with color negative motion picture film?

.

[CalArts 99]

While we may not specifically be using 35mm motion picture stock (although I use 16mm single perf Kodak Vision 3 in my Eclair ), if Eastman Kodak quits manufacturing film then where will Kodak Alaris get film to sell? I think that both EK and motion picture film is very connected to the availability of Kodak branded still film stocks and Kodak Alaris doesn't make the Kodak branded film that they are now selling.

[semi-ambivalent]

Well I don't know about others but I love Eastman 5222, a B&W emulsion, and have recently been trying ORWO N74, another B&W cine film. If I want color it's usually Portra 160 or a Canon Powershot 630

 

I think Kodak's problem is the scale and volume at which they were coating. A machine such as their coating line cannot be made smaller if demand falls, and I doubt their past CEO left any money un-wasted such that a smaller coater could be built. There will always be film because there will always be those willing to pay for it; that's ECON101. It just might not be Kodak's, although they still own the patents for La Grand Dame Tri-X and the tabular emulsions and could license their production to others like they did with their chemistry.

 

In the meantime I'm finding out just how nice cine film can be in an MP, albeit B&W. Color is what digital does best. I think it's a much more uncertain future there.

 

s-a

[digbyhp]

Thanks for posting, Pico. I'd been wondering how movie film production was doing, and the graph at the link shows how dramatically the number has gone down unfortunately. But a great initiative by the studios. Let's hope it leads to a small but stable and profitable market in the long term.

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One of our esteemed members mentioned T-Max. What a horrible film it is. Its outcome impresses me as fingernails dragged across a blackboard. WTF was Kodak thinking?

.

[semi-ambivalent]

One of our esteemed members mentioned T-Max. What a horrible film it is. Its outcome impresses me as fingernails dragged across a blackboard. WTF was Kodak thinking?

.

 

Kodak? Who knows. You might better ask one of the many who swear by it, and use it to produce some beautiful images. I'm not one of them BTW, so don't come knockin'.

 

thanks,

s-a

[erl]

One of our esteemed members mentioned T-Max. What a horrible film it is. Its outcome impresses me as fingernails dragged across a blackboard. WTF was Kodak thinking?

.

If nothing, you are clear Pico!

We always know what you are thinking.

[joeswe]

Do you know if Kodak has fixed the archival problem with color negative motion picture film?

.

 

As can be read over here, archival stability of modern motion picture color negative film should be as good if not better as that of color negative still film. Archival stability of cinematic print film is a different matter though (here, archival stability is not an important feature for obvious reasons), as is motion picture stock used as still film and developed in C41 process.

[250swb]

If a few super rich film studios can get together and guarantee Kodak an order of film for the coming years I don't see why thousands of reasonably comfortable individuals couldn't come together under a Kickstarter project to do the same thing?

 

Steve

[pico]

[...] Archival stability of cinematic print film is a different matter though (here, archival stability is not an important feature for obvious reasons), as is motion picture stock used as still film and developed in C41 process.

 

That is good to know. My impression of poor archival quality came from early experiences in the Eighties when cellulose triacetate base was used. Progress is a good thing.

.

[Herr Barnack]

If a few super rich film studios can get together and guarantee Kodak an order of film for the coming years I don't see why thousands of reasonably comfortable individuals couldn't come together under a Kickstarter project to do the same thing?

 

Steve

 

...Or - if everyone here who shoots film would put together a mass order four times a year for $100 USD per person worth of their favorite Kodak emulsion...

[andybarton]

Tarantino coming to the rescue?

 

BBC News - Hollywood directors rally to save film factory

[250swb]

...Or - if everyone here who shoots film would put together a mass order four times a year for $100 USD per person worth of their favorite Kodak emulsion...

 

 

Not enough. Far more film is used by Lomo photographers as a group, and then far more again by the photographers who still use film cameras as they always have. There are deep entrenched undercurrents of film use never mind the new adopters, and the Leica crowd are low on the usage list. We could speculate why that is so, but lets simply say some people aren't 'switchers and upgraders'. But get all the interest groups together in an organised subscription scheme and the world is your oyster.

 

And lets not forget my previous idea that Leica themselves could payroll a film scheme, with their own Leica branded film (like a 'Gibson 400' or 'Adams 25'), commissioning some from Ilford and some from Kodak and repackaging it. They would have the clout to pull it off, and the kudos needed to sell it. A subtle side benefit would be the sale of new film cameras and the service charges for older cameras if people could be attracted back to film use.

 

Steve

Edited July 31, 2014 by 250swb

[erl]

Nice idea Steve, ....... but can you imagine the cost of 'Leica' film!

 

Even now, I shudder at the overall cost of shooting the 'reel stuff' (pun intended), when once I never needed to even know the actual cost, it was so insignificant in the scheme of things.

 

Sadly, I can't even afford to buy film locally (Oz). Currently I import from B&H (NY) and even with ridiculous shipping costs, it is cheaper. Self processing keeps that cost significantly down (and better). I am realistic to accept it is all going in to cost more, with time, but adding a Leica content to the price might sour it a bit.

[pico]

I cannot imagine or tolerate a Leica film anymore than the total bullshit Rollie stock.

[erl]

Pico, I tried, briefly, the Rollei stuff. Total failure for me. In fairness, I understand you must use the special Rollei dev. I didn't. That alone, for me kills it. Smells of monopoly rather than fixer.

 

I enjoy diversity of choice.

[adan]

And lets not forget my previous idea that Leica themselves could payroll a film scheme, with their own Leica branded film .....

 

It has always struck me as funny that this film forum is listed/grouped under "Leica Products" - even though film is not a Leica product (and there are other existing sections for Leica film cameras, or film darkroom questions).

 

I wonder if Andreas knows something we don't, and is just planning ahead....

 

Alas, my film shooting these days is all 120, and I have a feeling Leica would only market 35mm.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[erl]

 

Alas, my film shooting these days is all 120, and I have a feeling Leica would only market 35mm.

I see nothing 'alas' about 120 film shooting.