Film sales now 1/50th what they were in 2000

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

Right now I can only assume - probably wrong - that as is the digital is rougher than film. Not in terms of resolution, but of tonal rendition. No matter that we shoot in RAW, shrub it in PS or whatever, when it comes to printing we usually end with a .jpg file. And a .jpg has only 8 bit grayscale, meaning that in a b&w picture there can be no more than 256 levels of grey against the virtually endless rendered by film.

Not to mention all of the subtle variations that can be generated by all film/speed/developer/dilution recombinations whereas the digital is limited to a single one.

 

The raw files are generally 12, 14, or 16 bits so they have a lot more than 256 shades from black to white. Additionally, my Canon ipf printer has a Photoshop Export module that lets it work from 16 bit files, so having very fine shades of gray in a print is possible. And it uses several gray and black inks. I did darkroom work since 1965 and I'm pleased with the b/w and color prints from this machine.

 

What can be displayed on most screens is only 8 bits but that will be the same whether the image was shot digitally or on film and then scanned.

[Xmas]

which should free-up some 300 tonnes of Silver next year."

 

Pro processors should have recovered silver from effluent any way so the actual usage should have been about 50%, but silver demand is not wonderful so should be dipping in price long term.

 

Noel

[!Nomad64]

B&W film has only two tones: black and white. The gray scale is the result of dithering, or the aggregation of black grains with white grain holes. A raw digital file can be processed with numerous software packages in a huge number of ways, yielding a huge number of subtle and not-so-subtle variations. A single digital negative can be processed over and over and over again to try many variations on a single image, and 256-tone pixels can be dithered just as easily as the 2-tone grains can be. I'm not claiming one is better than the other, just clearing up some misconceptions.

 

I respectfully beg to differ. I shared the same opinion until I made further research and found this essay:

Photo Utopia: Clumps and Chumps (or why film isn't binary)

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[!Nomad64]

The raw files are generally 12, 14, or 16 bits so they have a lot more than 256 shades from black to white. Additionally, my Canon ipf printer has a Photoshop Export module that lets it work from 16 bit files, so having very fine shades of gray in a print is possible. And it uses several gray and black inks. I did darkroom work since 1965 and I'm pleased with the b/w and color prints from this machine.

 

What can be displayed on most screens is only 8 bits but that will be the same whether the image was shot digitally or on film and then scanned.

 

Thanks Alan. Being not in digital printing I was unaware of that possibility. Obviously whatever you upload for the net or watch at a monitor will suffer the same limitations independently from the original source.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[wattsy]

I find this thread boring now. Let's park it for now, and come back in 5 years.

 

It's only become boring because it's been derailed by lots of nonsense about Kindles and sunglasses cameras. Personally, I find the numbers reported by the OP quite interesting and, if I'm honest, a little surprising. No-one could have had any doubts that the volume of film sales will have fallen a great deal during the last 10 years but I wouldn't have guessed that they are running at just 2% of the 2000 volume.

 

There's no question that there is a substantial market that will continue to be available for film manufacturers who can adjust to this market size and meet its needs - Ilford seem to be doing fine and may well prosper - but I would have thought that the current level of consumer sales is a serious problem for giants like Fuji and Kodak if they want to continue selling film in the consumer marketplace.

[wildlightphoto]

I respectfully beg to differ. I shared the same opinion until I made further research and found this essay:

Photo Utopia: Clumps and Chumps (or why film isn't binary)

 

Cheers,

Bruno

 

Show me a gray silver grain. The 45,000x magnification image shows the dithered nature of film grains.

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I have got my calculations correct, a 16 bit digital black and white file has 65,536 levels of gradation from pure black to pure white. I suspect that is enough for me and I would doubt that my elderly eyes can differentiate much more than this.

 

I would guess that dependant on the type of black and white film and the way it has been developed, the gradation gradient at certain parts of the curve will be different to digital but not necessarily better or worse. For example you can develop orthographic film (which is designed to have very few greys) in such a way to provide a some grey scale coverage but it will not have many shades of grey. Chromogenic film in my experience gives very good coverage of the middle areas of grey but dead blacks and pure whites are weaker than traditional silver halide film.

 

Wilson

[earleygallery]

It's only become boring because it's been derailed by lots of nonsense about Kindles and sunglasses cameras. Personally, I find the numbers reported by the OP quite interesting and, if I'm honest, a little surprising. No-one could have had any doubts that the volume of film sales will have fallen a great deal during the last 10 years but I wouldn't have guessed that they are running at just 2% of the 2000 volume.

.

 

Sorry Ian, where do you get 2% from?

[stunsworth]

Sorry Ian, where do you get 2% from?

 

From the title of this thread, and he article originally linked to. If sales are now 1/50th of what they were, that represents 2% of the former sales

[earleygallery]

Hmmm, the article mentions 948M rolls of film & single use camera sales in 2000, compared to 51M sales projected for this year. I make that approx 5.5%....... (and they are US domestic sales only don't forget).

[Xmas]

If I have got my calculations correct, a 16 bit digital black and white file has 65,536 levels of gradation from pure black to pure white. I suspect that is enough for me and I would doubt that my elderly eyes can differentiate much more than this.

 

I would guess that dependant on the type of black and white film and the way it has been developed, the gradation gradient at certain parts of the curve will be different to digital but not necessarily better or worse. For example you can develop orthographic film (which is designed to have very few greys) in such a way to provide a some grey scale coverage but it will not have many shades of grey. Chromogenic film in my experience gives very good coverage of the middle areas of grey but dead blacks and pure whites are weaker than traditional silver halide film.

 

Wilson

Hi Wilson

The limiting factor is unlikely to be the file but the anti alias, microlens, sensor interactions, then the ADC processing, then any JPEG loss.

If you are using film and you know the sceane is too high a contrast you can use a soft working developer like POTA or D-23, which compress the sceane contrast by making the shoulder softer - more rounded.

If using digital a single coated lens will have a similar effect but compressing the shadows - I think. The SC lens works with film as well.

Noel

[AlanG]

Thanks Alan. Being not in digital printing I was unaware of that possibility. Obviously whatever you upload for the net or watch at a monitor will suffer the same limitations independently from the original source.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

 

Yes, on screen viewing is a great equalizer that blurs the differences between a fine print made from an 8x10 negative and an image shot on a p&s.

 

Inkjet printing has really improved a lot over the years and I'm sure it will continue to improve. I don't think Epson or HP printers have 16 bit drivers but they do a good job too. Inkjet printing was even pretty good once the early professional 7 color printers came out. My printer has 12 inks and of course there are special b/w ink sets for printers too. And as they have improved there has been more movement away from traditional printing.

 

I never had the capacity to make 24"x36" color prints in my darkroom and b/w prints beyond 20x24 would have been very difficult for me to make. I just have to press a few buttons on my computer and I can make a print that size in about 7 minutes. There are very few reject prints and the number of test prints required are minimal. It is completely repeatable so next year I should be able to make a print that matches one I make today. The cost of a large inkjet printer is pretty low compared with a decent darkroom and they can be set up on a table rather than requiring an entire room.

 

Up until about two years ago, I still had a large darkroom, but couldn't make myself use it anymore, even though I used to love making prints in it. I know the movement to digital seriously lowers the bar of entry in various ways but especially in making a good print.

[!Nomad64]

Show me a gray silver grain. The 45,000x magnification image shows the dithered nature of film grains.

 

We were probably meaning the same thing. Where you wrote

 

B&W film has only two tones: black and white. The gray scale is the result of dithering, or the aggregation of black grains with white grain holes.

 

I probably misunderstood you as I intended that a grain can be only black or white, which you never said. From the image magnification it's clear that a grain is not black OR white but is black AND white. The resulting grey tone is therefore a form of dithering.

 

Cheers,

Bruno

[AlanG]

Hmmm, the article mentions 948M rolls of film & single use camera sales in 2000, compared to 51M sales projected for this year. I make that approx 5.5%....... (and they are US domestic sales only don't forget).

 

I too was trying to figure this calculation. I guess it was from a billion rolls to 20 million and didn't count the disposable cameras.

 

But here is all you really need to know about Kodak, film, chemicals, and paper. They downsized their buildings a bit back in 2007 so I don't think they were counting on any resurgence in traditional materials or the need for the space should their new strategy pay off.

 

YouTube - ‪kodak implosion‬‏

 

And now they have a lot of empty land they are trying to get rid of.

 

http://rochester.ynn.com/content/494292/kodak--city-work-to-fill-kodak-park-space/

 

And they are trying to sell or lease out a lot of what remains.

 

http://www.eastmanbusinesspark.com/

 

It is not as easy as some may think to downsize when you have all of these facilities costing you money.

 

Kodak employment in Rochester dropped from a peak of 60,000 in 1982 to 7500 in 2010 to ? today. Last year they were only the third largest employer in the city. (U of R and Wegmans)

 

As one who used to live in Rochester, this is all pretty sad.

 

As we all say over and over, nobody knows where this will end but most believe some kind of film will be available for quite a while.

[bill]

Hmmm, the article mentions 948M rolls of film & single use camera sales in 2000, compared to 51M sales projected for this year. I make that approx 5.5%....... (and they are US domestic sales only don't forget).

 

So do we have any figures for the free world?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[wattsy]

Hmmm, the article mentions 948M rolls of film & single use camera sales in 2000, compared to 51M sales projected for this year. I make that approx 5.5%.

 

It's still a sobering number for the two industry giants. If you strip out the disposable cameras (I know film is film) and consider rolls of film that people buy to put in cameras, sales are around 2.5% of the 2000 peak. That's a startling figure when you consider it in isolation and you can understand why the two main players have been closing plant and laying off workers.

 

Incidentally, how has this thread, which started off discussing some interesting numbers about film sales (at least I thought they were interesting), veered off into an incredibly tedious debate about whether film or digital has more greyscales?

[wlaidlaw]

Hi Wilson

The limiting factor is unlikely to be the file but the anti alias, microlens, sensor interactions, then the ADC processing, then any JPEG loss.

If you are using film and you know the sceane is too high a contrast you can use a soft working developer like POTA or D-23, which compress the sceane contrast by making the shoulder softer - more rounded.

If using digital a single coated lens will have a similar effect but compressing the shadows - I think. The SC lens works with film as well.

Noel

 

Noel,

 

JPEG?? what's JPEG?

 

Seriously the amount of detail you can pull out of the shadows on M8 and M9 files never fails to amaze me and of course due to the way that digital works, there is always far more data in the dark end bits than there is the bright bits. This is why Leica could get away so successfully with the logarithmic compression algorithm they used in the M8. In this aspect digital is superior to film. It is very difficult to pull more detail out of the dark areas of film. Was not the old maxim: Expose for the dark areas and Print for the light.

 

Wilson (Call me TIFF) ;-}}

[tomasis7]

I respectfully beg to differ. I shared the same opinion until I made further research and found this essay:

Photo Utopia: Clumps and Chumps (or why film isn't binary)

 

Cheers,

Bruno

 

OFFTOPIC

 

cool link!

 

wildphoto explanation is misleading. Even if facts are not wrong, but it is impossible to make theories about films due its analog nature. while softwares are build up with mathematics.

 

there in the article it is mentioned about 10 layers of grains, that makes films way superior while digital which haves only 1 layer! No wonder about deep 3d sense from film.

 

 

Some clever quote from Nestor

 

Here's a link to a paper by Nestor Rodriguez (Senior Technical Associate at Eastman Kodak):

 

 

Quote:

Q: What are the main differences between the way images are recorded on film and digital, aside from resolution?

 

A: "Film is analog, like the human eye. It sees and records continuous tonal gradations between black and white.

 

 

 

 

no need to say any more

[tomasis7]

But it is pretty much only artists who make oil paintings isn't it? There aren't commercial applications for it today, nor do people typically record their kids birthday parties in oil. Stone carving and various forms of sculpture are also still around, as are daguerreotypes and many other media and techniques. My guess is the materials available to artists have as great a selection as ever. And artists can always find stone, hammers, and chisels or make their own oil paint and paper.

 

However a lot of photographic materials and processes that can't be made at home are no longer available such as Autochrome, Aero Infrared, dye transfer, carbro, Kodachrome, etc. And more will follow. (Perhaps you could make your own Autochrome.) I'm just talking about ones that have nothing similar left in the marketplace unlike the many types of films and papers that have been dropped. For instance people find working substitutes for litho paper since Kodalith was dropped.

 

This is why I say that at some point film will mostly be used by artists and enthusiasts because virtually all the other applications of photography will be more economical to do digitally or better suited to digital capture. But what film and other materials will be around 10-20 years form now is uncertain because we have no idea how large a market there will be for it. Whereas the market for oil paint or watercolor material is pretty large, stable and long standing.

 

nothing to disagree..

 

my point is that films are going through troublesome period now when there is insecurity whether buy or not especially for beginners/newcomers/them who are tired on digital

 

I never care about consumer, it is obvious answer about outcome of materials. So long some photographic materials are simple to make, they stay,, we dont need make them ourselves.

 

I dont know why you keep talking about commercial, consumer vs film debate i thought it was already over

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

There still are quite a few commercial users and consumer users. These will decline and perhaps the artful uses will pick up a bit. I looked at how much surplus space Kodak has and it is an example of the decline in manufacturing. This will never be replaced even if Kodak finds a way to become successful in new markets.