pop Posted October 14, 2014 Share #81 Posted October 14, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) AlanG has brought a new aspect into the thread, the ecological impact of using film vs digital photography. Since this is aspect is not restricted to the Ferrania project under discussion here and could not easily located by anyone interested in the topic I have moved it into a new thread:http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/barnacks-bar/350095-ecological-issues-using-film.html#post2801791 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 14, 2014 Posted October 14, 2014 Hi pop, Take a look here Ferrania - moving mass production machinery. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
plasticman Posted October 27, 2014 Share #82 Posted October 27, 2014 Two days left, and the project is hovering around $309,000. This is a great achievement! But it would be even better to push it up to $320,000+ So if you haven't contributed yet, every single dollar helps! Ferrania could be the last color film producer left in a few year's time, and you don't wanna be kicking yourself that you didn't help them through this stage of their renaissance, if and when Kodak and Fuji stop producing film sometime in the future. If you love film - try to help as best you can! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 29, 2014 Share #83 Posted October 29, 2014 OK one last time... less than 4 hours to go. Just a few hundred short of $320,000! This could be your last chance to help film survive for the next few decades! Don't be that person saying you wished you'd helped, when all you have to choose from is some crappy digital camera in five years' time! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaphilia Posted October 29, 2014 Share #84 Posted October 29, 2014 Done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
M9reno Posted October 29, 2014 Share #85 Posted October 29, 2014 Ditto Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted October 29, 2014 Share #86 Posted October 29, 2014 They have taken my money Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 31, 2014 Share #87 Posted October 31, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Ferrania could be the last color film producer left in a few year's time, and you don't wanna be kicking yourself that you didn't help them through this stage of their renaissance, if and when Kodak and Fuji stop producing film sometime in the future. You dismiss the idea that demand for film will grow. So are you saying that interest in film will fall off so much that Fuji's and Kodak's facilities will be too large for the low demand? And they won't be able to adjust. But Ferrania's production scale will be right sized to be a profitable venture long into the future? They speak of 100 years. Do these assumptions have a basis in fact or is the idea that you encourage us to support Ferrania to hedge our bets? Can Ferrania be commercially viable while Kodak and Fuji still produce film? And if so, will this siphon off enough sales from Kodak or Fuji for either one to discontinue any film sooner than otherwise would be the case? If not, then isn't Ferrania just banking on producing a pretty low volume? Can such a low volume be profitable or even matter much? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted October 31, 2014 Share #88 Posted October 31, 2014 Here is a new Q and A session with Ferrania and what they are anticipating for the coming year, and some hints as to what they have planned for later: Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 31, 2014 Share #89 Posted October 31, 2014 So are you saying that interest in film will fall off so much that Fuji's and Kodak's facilities will be too large for the low demand? And they won't be able to adjust. But Ferrania's production scale will be right sized to be a profitable venture long into the future? This came up in a seminar with the Ilford management, and yes, the machines that Kodak has are close to the edge of being able to run economically for the current rate of film use, or even with a modest increase. The difficulty is volume. With 'just in time' distribution the camera shop is no longer geared up to store film, and film itself has a storage life, so whatever is produced has to be needed by customers and in smaller volumes than they would have ordered ten years ago. Ilford can tailor production during a week for some days standing idle (built into the business plan), some days making Ilford film, and some days making other brand films. But if Ilford's machines run all week they would make enough film to last a year at the current rate of use, and they are much smaller machines than Kodak's. So if the only economical way to fire up Kodak's machines involves a production run that meets the years demand in one go, what do you do with film that is going out of date from the moment you produce it? It isn't like running a machine once a year to make the film cassettes, or the cartons that can be stacked on pallets, the film has a shelf life. Which is where smaller niche companies enter the market. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 31, 2014 Share #90 Posted October 31, 2014 Well it first crossed my mind that film manufacturers should see if they can extend the shelf life so that occasional large batch runs could stay profitable. But I have no idea what the costs are of having that equipment and workers sitting idle. If Ferrania can be profitable with small batches that will be good for them. And perhaps they'll be able to expand production should Fuji end E 6 production or other films disappear. But long-term planning for a new company in a declining market seems highly risky to me. Especially since advances in digital photography will be relentless. E.g. I read the linked 10 page APUG exchange and there were requests for high speed and tungsten film. Even cheap APS cameras can make very good images at ISO 3000+ and very high ISOs are often employed now. The gap between what digital and film can do will only increase....and we don't know if this will further accelerate the shrinkage of the film market. And if volume and hence profits are low. I don't see how they'll be able to afford R&D to improve the products over time to even match what Fuji and Kodak have already done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 31, 2014 Share #91 Posted October 31, 2014 Even cheap APS cameras can make very good images at ISO 3000+ and very high ISOs are often employed now. The gap between what digital and film can do will only increase....and we don't know if this will further accelerate the shrinkage of the film market. Well APS camera's wont be around as long as film, they will be superseded by iPhones. Which leaves the perception in your own mind that film and digital are still in competition, rather than being alternative ways to an end. Resolution is not everything, as hopefully everybody knows by now, and professional photographers, bloggers, educated and balanced amateurs acknowledge that around 16mp is about all they need day to day, but that there will always be a niche for more specialist camera's. It is the way film can look very different to digital that drives film sales, and with an authenticity in grain, tone, and even the deconstruction of the image with 'faults' (like many Holga pictures) that is the final satisfying icing on the cake, rather than replication in Lightroom. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 31, 2014 Share #92 Posted October 31, 2014 Likewise it is the way that digital can look much different than film that has caused some to abandon film. I sure never appreciated film "faults." It seems that Ferrania's long term success is predicated on a decline of film demand to the extent that Kodak and Fuji will end production. So obviously there is not expected to be an increase in people appreciating whatever some think can only be uniquely accomplished with film. And if resolution is not important, why are some on the APUG site asking for 4x5 and 8x10, and why are 36MP cameras popular. And why do people buy Leica lenses? Consider that not long ago, typical commercial shooters used 4x5 for at least some of their work. LF certainly did not typically have a grainy or flawed look. Now small format digital can have a similar look... that was a major appeal to me.I was not trying to copy the look of film, I was tying to avoid the grain and other issues of using film. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted October 31, 2014 Share #93 Posted October 31, 2014 Many of us like the way film looks compared to how we can get our digital files to look. I like to take photos without looking for blown out highlights, send it off, look forward to it coming back, and looking at the results and knowing I personally couldn't achieve that look with a digital file and photoshop. I'm aware some can. Do I want to learn how? No. Why should I when there's not a digital camera in existence that I want to use. I like my leica film bodies. Yes, some people can achieve a wonderful look with digital files. Would I? No. No one is disputing that cars are faster than horses, guns have more range than bows. I guess some people just like to shoot film, like the results and enjoy the process, as has been discussed when ever you drop in on a film related thread. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 31, 2014 Share #94 Posted October 31, 2014 Blowing out highlights on slide film is pretty easy too. Many people like what they know and are accustomed to. And for some, it also defines the look they want. I am not encouraging anyone to change their methods. It's just pretty clear why many have gone digital and why the long term future for film is hard to know. I always thought it was interesting that if Mathew Brady came back from the dead, he could pick up a modern view camera and go to work with little effort although he'd most likely use modern materials or digital. Some aspects of the technology stayed the same for so long. I doubt if that is true in many fields. Back in 1971 I was learning dye transfer printing at RIT. My professor was Robert Bagby who at the time was in his 70s. He felt that dye transfer was ok but missed the Carbro process. By that point in time, few knew much about Carbro, just as many have gotten along without dye transfer all of these years. Many people liked Kodachrome. But I remember my stock agency encouraging me to use Velvia as they felt the punchy colors made the images more marketable. Likewise the saturated and contrasty Cibachrome process was preferred by many. Numerous materials disappeared due to lack of demand and will continue to do so. At one time almost every commercial shooter I know used 35mm, 120, and 4x5. Things change and it will be interesting to see how many people embrace the "look" of the new Ferrania E6 film... something that will be a new adventure for many and cannot simply be explained by saying it gives the look they have always been happy with. So there are other factors at play. It isn't as if they are making Kodachrome again. And even with Kodachrome there was some complaining when Kodachrome II was replaced by Kodachrome 25 and Kodachrome II with Kodachrome 64. As for Ferrania, we can't really discuss the qualities of a film that does not yet exist. But some must be anticipating they'll like it... for reasons that I cannot explain. Is it just so important to have some kind of color slide film in the future, that the specifics don't matter? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
250swb Posted October 31, 2014 Share #95 Posted October 31, 2014 And if resolution is not important, why are some on the APUG site asking for 4x5 and 8x10, and why are 36MP cameras popular. And why do people buy Leica lenses? Consider that not long ago, typical commercial shooters used 4x5 for at least some of their work. LF certainly did not typically have a grainy or flawed look. Now small format digital can have a similar look... that was a major appeal to me.I was not trying to copy the look of film, I was tying to avoid the grain and other issues of using film. This revisionism is becoming absurd. The entire history of photography has been based on good images, not high resolution images. So you now think it has to change and digital photography is the media equivalent of Day One of Year One that supersedes all previous low resolution images to herald in the furture of anodyne high resolution images without the possibility of expression by the use of grain, camera movement, wanting something unique, a different way of working, or indeed embracing and using faults if a Holga user. You are a digital snob Alan. Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted October 31, 2014 Share #96 Posted October 31, 2014 Well it first crossed my mind that film manufacturers should see if they can extend the shelf life so that occasional large batch runs could stay profitable. But I have no idea what the costs are of having that equipment and workers sitting idle. If Ferrania can be profitable with small batches that will be good for them. And perhaps they'll be able to expand production should Fuji end E 6 production or other films disappear. But long-term planning for a new company in a declining market seems highly risky to me. Especially since advances in digital photography will be relentless. E.g. I read the linked 10 page APUG exchange and there were requests for high speed and tungsten film. Even cheap APS cameras can make very good images at ISO 3000+ and very high ISOs are often employed now. The gap between what digital and film can do will only increase....and we don't know if this will further accelerate the shrinkage of the film market. And if volume and hence profits are low. I don't see how they'll be able to afford R&D to improve the products over time to even match what Fuji and Kodak have already done. You just don't get it, some of us prefer the look of film and film is not declining in the UK quite the opposite Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalArts 99 Posted October 31, 2014 Share #97 Posted October 31, 2014 AlanG: we get it. But you're repeating the same things over and over again (and stuff that all photographers are quite familiar with already; you might want to consider the background of others here, too.) And there's no value to it anymore and certainly no value to a film forum (and a forum in which many participants use both film and digital media in respect to specific projects and final products.) It's becoming provocative and troll-like. Why not just give it a rest. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 31, 2014 Share #98 Posted October 31, 2014 This revisionism is becoming absurd. The entire history of photography has been based on good images, not high resolution images. So you now think it has to change and digital photography is the media equivalent of Day One of Year One that supersedes all previous low resolution images to herald in the furture of anodyne high resolution images without the possibility of expression by the use of grain, camera movement, wanting something unique, a different way of working, or indeed embracing and using faults if a Holga user. You are a digital snob Alan. Steve I never said anything like that. I simply said that many photographers who used film in all sizes and for all purposes stopped using it. And Ferrania's long term hope is dependent on that trend continuing to the point that they are the only supplier of color film. That is pretty clear from their site and from what Plasticman posted here about saving us from only having crummy digital cameras in a few years. I'm writing about the Ferrania project not about why people like film... talking about being repetitive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted October 31, 2014 Share #99 Posted October 31, 2014 You just don't get it, some of us prefer the look of film and film is not declining in the UK quite the opposite If so do you think this will help Ferrania? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsgary Posted October 31, 2014 Share #100 Posted October 31, 2014 If so do you think this will help Ferrania? Yes there are still 10 people in are club that shoot slide and we have all bought into the kickstarter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.