Future of Film

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If my ageing memory serves me correctly, didn't Kodak use to claim that they 'used the whole cow' at their Rochester factory? Besides being the source of gelatine for the film base, the leather was used for straps, cases and coverings, and the best meat was used to feed the workers.

 

I lived in Rochester and I don't remember seeing any herds of cattle there. But maybe you are right. They must have eaten a lot of steaks in the cafeteria. Kodak employment peaked at about 60,000 in Rochester in 1982 and now it is down to 7400. Worldwide employment is down from 120,000 to 20,300. That Rochester "factory" once comprised 1600 acres and 212 buildings. In 2007 it was down to about 700 acres and 100 buildings. However, I doubt if this saved any cows. It once was considered to be a great place to work.

 

Kodak employment here dips below 7,500 | Rochester Business Journal New York business news and information

[pico]

If my ageing memory serves me correctly, didn't Kodak use to claim that they 'used the whole cow' at their Rochester factory? Besides being the source of gelatine for the film base, the leather was used for straps, cases and coverings, and the best meat was used to feed the workers.

 

I have not read that, but it makes sense. George Eastman was brilliant, and also a very generous person who was proud that he paid his work workers above scale, he offered profit sharing, and he was also the first to establish, at his expense, higher education for technical subjects, and he was almost a hundred years ahead of the Civil Rights movement. The man is still mysterious. He ended his own life during a certain decline to his health.

 

Hope this minutiae is not welcome, but he's a hero of mine.

[pgk]

..... I have often wondered why a non-animal substitute has not been found - it must be cheaper than relying on 'old' gelatine technology?

From my studying days I seem to remember that gelatine is actually a very effective material to use for film production. Its not simply a 'viable' material, it actually has properties which make it highly usable, and its cheap. So given that for film use gelatine is a very good material to use, I can't see what motivation there would be for changing it - and far more so now as digital imaging matures.

[noah_addis]

Well, my confidence has been shaken. One of my favorite films, Kodak 400NC, is no more.

 

KODAK PROFESSIONAL PORTRA 400 Film: Questions and Answers

 

Apparently the 400nc and 400vc film are being replaced by a single Portra 400 film. The film will not be available in 8x10 (which thankfully I don't shoot anymore) and apparently will only be available in propacks of 5 rolls (also no big deal since I go through film like crazy).

 

I wonder if they'll do the same with the 160 speed portra films. In a way I hope they do. I liked how closely matched the 160NC and 400NC were.

 

I don't know if I should be worried about the film companies consolidating their lines and offering fewer choices, or happy that they're still making advances in film. To be fair I don't think the minor difference in saturation between the color neg films is a big deal, especially since many photographers scan their negs for digital printing. I'm sure the new film will be fine for my needs, the big question for me is if they'll keep chipping away at our options.

 

And I don't know what the 8x10 shooters will do. Portra 400 was a very popular film for large format color photographers.

[adan]

Noah, most places "pro" enough to carry the Portra line will usually sell individual rolls out of the 5-packs anyway.

 

As to consolidation, I guess my perspective is colored by the fact that when I started college photo classes, the options for 35mm color neg amounted to - Kodacolor-X. Period.

 

In MF or LF there was Vericolor S and L (daylight/tungsten variants, also tuned for reciprocity effects). No 400 at all. Fuji didn't exist in the US market (although it wasn't long coming). Agfa, Ansco and GAF were minor players.

 

Somehow, we all managed to practice color photography, pass our classes, graduate, and get jobs using that limited palette of film.

 

As some wise person once said, "When there are no options, there are no problems."

[noah_addis]

Andy--You're right, I don't think the replacement of two emulsions with one is a huge problem. Nor do I mind buying in 5-packs (though I usually buy much more than 5 rolls at a time anyway).

 

It's just that I can't decide if this is truly an advance and improvement or if it's a cost-cutting measure that signals more cutbacks in the future.

 

Edit: In fact, if the new film is as good as the say it is, I may forget about the 160 and use the new 400 for everything. With my 6x7 negs, the existing Portra 400NC is very good and even in large prints it's only slightly grainier than the 160NC. Personally, I like having not too many choices and I like a consistent look across a project. But still, I worry about what it means for the future. Will they cut 220 if it doesn't sell enough, etc...

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Years ago, when Fuji released their sheet and 120 Reala film it was revolutionary (especially for interior shooters) in how it could work well under mixed lighting. They had short and long exposure versions available. I don't think there is anything equivalent today, but I guess you could always scan and try to correct individual areas.

 

I tested a lot of film. I found that the Fuji color neg did better with greens and the Kodak did better with reds for the 4x5 emulsions that I tried. I also felt that Fuji 64T transparency film did well with reddish woods. I shot a lot of high end custom carpets for one company and found that certain colors could only be reproduced with specific films.

 

I still had reciprocity failure issues to understand and compensate for. Once scanning came along this made things a lot easier because you could adjust the colors in post. But now digital photography and tethered shooting allows one to get very close at the time of image capture. Specifically I can compare the color on screen to the actual scene... something that is very difficult to do with film.

[Paul Glendell]

Hello folks

I think it was me that started the discussion on this thread about the future of geletin for film - only being produced in switzerland by one company -

 

Here is an anecdotal update: went into a very small computer shop in my nearest town - I live in a pretty rural place - and on the shelf were several different types of mono films for sale, the shop assisstent - a former pro photographer - tells me that they continue to stock the film as it keeps selling and infact, he says, they seem to be selling more and more of it. So a shop, not exactly where I would first think of going to buy film is not only selling it but sales are increasing, so maybe it will go on for ever!

 

I certainly hope so

 

Paul

 

Paul Glendell Photography

[Stealth3kpl]

Do you know Paul, I had the same experience in a small family shop in a village in the sticks of Northern England. Husband and wife were telling me that someone else had been in that morning buying film. I caught them looking at each other obviously making a mental note to consider getting more stock.

Pete

[thebarnman]

Full frame cameras have advanced in various ways since the 11 megapixel 1Ds in 2003. I don't think anything about film cameras, film technology, film processing, and scanning has improved significantly in those 7 years. Over the next 7 years, digital sensors, digital cameras, firmware, and software will continue to improve while film, film cameras, and scanners will not improve much, if at all. (For instance, the top shutter speed on an M7 is 1/1000 and is 1/4000 on an M9.)

 

So when it comes to versatility, capability, and overall quality, film will be functionally obsolete in a few more years (it is already for many)... whether some people will prefer using it and the look of it, is another matter.

 

Film equipment is a mature technology, so much more than digital. In fact, digital has many years to go before it reaches a maturity film equipment had in the late 70s.

 

Even today, the new model digital cameras make last year's models obsolete.

 

And by the way, I don't look at higher shutter speeds as a technological advancement. However if you want to, I bet you'd be very impressed with my Leica analog R9. It's a full frame format and it's highest shutter speed is 1/8000, doubling the speed of the digital M9.

[AlanG]

Even today, the new model digital cameras make last year's models obsolete.

 

And by the way, I don't look at higher shutter speeds as a technological advancement. However if you want to, I bet you'd be very impressed with my Leica analog R9. It's a full frame format and it's highest shutter speed is 1/8000, doubling the speed of the digital M9.

 

That's my point, digital gear is improving and film cameras are not. Whether or not one feels that it makes one's current gear obsolete depends on the the new features and what one needs.

 

Despite your 1/8000th second on the R9 there won't be a film M with such a high shutter speed. And the M8 had 1/8000th. What is the highest ISO color slide film you can buy today?

 

Look at some of the latest technology in the Sony A55 cameras. There is an electronic spirit level that I would find very handy. The camera can shoot at 10 frames per second and have continuous AF the entire time. It is light, small and inexpensive. Some of this same technology could also be used on a film camera but they aren't doing that. (Film cameras are only "mature" technology because nobody is advancing them today.)

[bill]

Film cameras are only "mature" technology because nobody is advancing them today.

 

Good. I would rather take a picture than play space invaders...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[andybarton]

Does anyone need to advance film camera technology?

 

Let's face it, apart from the obvious, Holga, £2.99 disposables and maybe one Nikon if you can find one, how many new film cameras are available today?

 

The future of film is in people using the existing stock of millions of existing cameras.

 

There is no long term future for new film cameras.

 

The future of film and film cameras are not the same.

[kivis]

Film users get a camera with a lens. Digital users get a computer and a lens. That why I shoot film.

[AlanG]

Good. I would rather take a picture than play space invaders...

 

Regards,

 

Bill

 

 

You may not have noticed but a lot of the advances in cameras - IS, AF, exposure bracketing, better metering, faster shooting rates, TTL flash, first appeared on film cameras that had computers in them. What the hell does flippant condescending remarks such as "play space invaders" have to do with any of this? Huge numbers of very fine photographers are using the latest digital gear... they are working seriously, not playing with them. Do you really mean to suggest that the only true photographers are those who use completely manual film cameras? If so, please substantiate this remark.

 

Just to get to one very simple item... wouldn't a built in very accurate electronic spirit level be useful sometimes even in a manual film camera? (I do not find any of the clip on spirit levels to be accurate enough for my use.)

[Xmas]

KISS

 

Keep it simple and stupid, the Contax II and IIa were too complex, When Nikon copied the contax they simplified, everything except the viewfinder and lever wind....

 

Stick a electronic level with sudio announciator to the topplate or hot shoe..

 

Noel

[AlanG]

Film users get a camera with a lens. Digital users get a computer and a lens. That why I shoot film.

 

Since you are communicating via one, how opposed to computers are you?

[AlanG]

KISS

 

 

Stick a electronic level with sudio announciator to the topplate or hot shoe..

 

Noel

 

Levels mounted into a hot shoe don't tend to be accurate enough. I have a half dozen of them. What a lot of this boils down to is not even comparing film to digital. It is some people wanting a very simple camera. Simple cameras of various sorts have been made for a long time and are still available. So what?

 

But when we are talking about the future of film, I'd say that film's future role will be reduced more and more as the gulf between what a digital camera can do and what a film camera can do widens. Regardless of whether some here prefer minimalism or want any of these newfangled "space invader" features.. The "minimalists" are a very tiny sector of the photography business. Years ago, when I gave my parents a VCR, they were afraid to touch the remote control for fear they'd break something. Eventually they learned to use it and appreciated it. But my dad would never use the microwave oven. Who would think that way today?

[bill]

Do you really mean to suggest that the only true photographers are those who use completely manual film cameras?

 

...do you really mean to put words in my mouth...? Come on...

 

Just to get to one very simple item... wouldn't a built in very accurate electronic spirit level be useful sometimes even in a manual film camera?

 

NOT TO ME.

 

It's as simple as that, Alan. I get pig sick and tired of TechnoTubbies telling me that something would be "useful sometimes" just because it can be stuffed into a bit of firmware.

 

Get the message. Please. We do not all want the same things.

 

Who resurrected this blasted thread anyway? Didn't they realise it would be like catnip to the TechnoTubbies?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest nafpie]

Film users get a camera with a lens. Digital users get a computer and a lens.

 

What a nice, hand made 'argument'.

 

Each child knows that a DSLR or a M8/9 needs a 'dark room' with the lens at the one, the sensor with the shutter at the opposite side. This 'dark room' usually is called 'camera'.

 

What you call 'computer' is also inside a Nikon F3, a Hasselblad 203FE and even a Leica M7, for example.

 

Stefan