Why does it make any sense at all to use non-professional grade film stocks in this day and age???

[Doc Henry]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a point of interest, does anyone here have access to data on:

1. Costs of sales for the various films being discussed?
2. Annual unit sales for the various films being discussed?

I'm wondering what the comparable margins are, whether the non-professional films achieve volume sales that allow considerably reduced cost of sales, and then, subjectively, how the difference in quality relates to the resultant pricing.

 

No agenda - Just interest.

 

Some infos coming just from Kodak :

 

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/12/kodak-film-profitable-2016-nolan-tarantino-abrams

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Improves_Operating_Performance_in_First_Quarter_of_2015/default.htm

 

Regards

H.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Doc Henry

[Advertisement]

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

[sblitz]

Adam -- Adan wrote out exactly as I learned it in the early 70s. After all, in the pre-digital era a studio photographer shooting for a magazine layout needed to know the colors from roll to roll would be exactly the same. The aging issue he wrote about is 100% correct. As for today? Well, I would presume it is the same thing, if you are using film you still need the same color from roll to roll -- this isn't always that easy to isolate and correct on the computer (to the extent any commercial photographer still uses film!). One thing I do know that Kodak changed is formula and film stock to make the film easier to scan. Is that only true for professional grade films? I have no idea. Personally, I shoot pro films for the illusion of constancy of color (no idea it if is still true) and I like the palettes better. 

[A miller]

Yes, I wish I hadn't bought so much Portra because it is taking up freezer space I could use for other film. :-)

 

I take your word about the data sheets but I simply make my preference based on what I see.

 

Fair enough, Ian.  I will say that the most lovely random portraits of your daughter that you share from time to time will optimize any film stock on the market today.     Less so for your sheep, so I recommend Ektar there...

[A miller]

Adam -- Adan wrote out exactly as I learned it in the early 70s. After all, in the pre-digital era a studio photographer shooting for a magazine layout needed to know the colors from roll to roll would be exactly the same. The aging issue he wrote about is 100% correct. As for today? Well, I would presume it is the same thing, if you are using film you still need the same color from roll to roll -- this isn't always that easy to isolate and correct on the computer (to the extent any commercial photographer still uses film!). One thing I do know that Kodak changed is formula and film stock to make the film easier to scan. Is that only true for professional grade films? I have no idea. Personally, I shoot pro films for the illusion of constancy of color (no idea it if is still true) and I like the palettes better. 

 

Thanks, Steve.  I have no doubt that the point made by Adan and James is correct.  I just question whether it holds true today.  If it were true, it would mean that the cheaper Kodak gold and/or ultramax could be relied on to produce a rendering that is the same as the portras...  Seems like quite a leap of faith in order to save a few bucks...

[wattsy]

Thanks, Steve.  I have no doubt that the point made by Adan and James is correct.  I just question whether it holds true today.  If it were true, it would mean that the cheaper Kodak gold and/or ultramax could be relied on to produce a rendering that is the same as the portras...  Seems like quite a leap of faith in order to save a few bucks...

 

 

Just as a general point, Adam, there is no doubt IMO that Portra (in its various flavours) is not the same film as Gold (which looks quite different) nor is Fuji Superia the same as Pro 400H, even if all the films come from the same plants using much the same materials. However, what I have found is that the cheaper films, whilst they have a different palette and different grain characteristic, are not necessarily inferior and I really don't accept the argument that these cheaper films from Fuji and Kodak are unworthy of Leica cameras or lenses. As I wrote earlier, this thinking suggests an orthodoxy that I don't wish to buy into and also smacks a little too much for me of the kind of competitive "my lens is the sharpest or fastest" thinking that bedevils so much discussion in camera forums.

[A miller]

Just as a general point, Adam, there is no doubt IMO that Portra (in its various flavours) is not the same film as Gold (which looks quite different) nor is Fuji Superia the same as Pro 400H, even if all the films come from the same plants using much the same materials. However, what I have found is that the cheaper films, whilst they have a different palette and different grain characteristic, are not necessarily inferior and I really don't accept the argument that these cheaper films from Fuji and Kodak are unworthy of Leica cameras or lenses. As I wrote earlier, this thinking suggests an orthodoxy that I don't wish to buy into and also smacks a little too much for me of the kind of competitive "my lens is the sharpest or fastest" thinking that bedevils so much discussion in camera forums.

 

Well, I am not trying to sell you anything to buy into.  This thread is really intended to gain insights and not to attempt to convince anyone of anything.  So please don't take offense and I hope you can respect my POV just as I respect yours.  I also don't think this is an unhealthy thread for this forum.  I think it is perfectly appropriate and valid point of discussion provided we stay objective and avoid getting personal.  

[wattsy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I am not trying to sell you anything to buy into.  This thread is really intended to gain insights and not to attempt to convince anyone of anything.  So please don't take offense and I hope you can respect my POV just as I respect yours.  I also don't think this is an unhealthy thread for this forum.  I think it is perfectly appropriate and valid point of discussion provided we stay objective and avoid getting personal.  

 

 

No offence taken, Adam – I understand the spirit in which you have asked the question here (and in Shiva's thread). My comment above isn't aimed at you but at those who have jumped in with some rather unnecessarily prescriptive and judgemental comments (all IMO).

Edited February 21, 2016 by wattsy

[A miller]

No offence taken, Adam – I understand the spirit in which you have asked the question here (and in Shiva's thread). My comment above isn't aimed at you at all but at those who have jumped in with some rather unnecessarily prescriptive and judgemental comments (all IMO).

 

Got it, Ian.  I actually started this thread to sort of "start over" the line of questioning/commentary that I had made in the other thread in order to take some of the emotion and subjectivity out of the topic and just raise the question as a point of discussion that could very well be spirited but hopefully would stay objective and respectful.  I think the best way to do this is to focus on what our own preference is and articulate a basis for it and any questioning of another's POV should be to just better understand it and not judge it.

[EoinC]

Some infos coming just from Kodak :

 

http://nofilmschool.com/2015/12/kodak-film-profitable-2016-nolan-tarantino-abrams

http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/corp/Press_center/Kodak_Improves_Operating_Performance_in_First_Quarter_of_2015/default.htm

 

Regards

H.

Thanks, Henry. There are some interesting comments in the first link ( plus a link to the Cintel Scanner https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/cintel - 90 minutes of 35mm motion film scanned in 90 minutes!)

It's a pity that Kodak's Quarter reporting is not more granular , so that we can see more detail in the PSD division.

[EoinC]

Just as a general point, Adam, there is no doubt IMO that Portra (in its various flavours) is not the same film as Gold (which looks quite different) nor is Fuji Superia the same as Pro 400H, even if all the films come from the same plants using much the same materials. However, what I have found is that the cheaper films, whilst they have a different palette and different grain characteristic, are not necessarily inferior and I really don't accept the argument that these cheaper films from Fuji and Kodak are unworthy of Leica cameras or lenses. As I wrote earlier, this thinking suggests an orthodoxy that I don't wish to buy into and also smacks a little too much for me of the kind of competitive "my lens is the sharpest or fastest" thinking that bedevils so much discussion in camera forums.

Which then leads to the next question (which I am not able to answer, not having used either film) - What is "wrong" with the Gold or Superia films in the opinions of those who have rejected them? Palette? Consistency? Something else?

[Doc Henry]

Thanks, Henry. There are some interesting comments in the first link ( plus a link to the Cintel Scanner https://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/cintel - 90 minutes of 35mm motion film scanned in 90 minutes!)

It's a pity that Kodak's Quarter reporting is not more granular , so that we can see more detail in the PSD division.

EC , you are welcome

Two more interesting links where I learned a lot and I did not know

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2015/04/23/manufacturers-talk-state-film-photography-industry/#.VsoeHkD4SUQ

http://gearpatrol.com/2015/03/16/buying-guide-camera-film/

Rg

Henry

Edited February 21, 2016 by Doc Henry

[AlanG]

Pro color film used to come with specific color correction and reciprocity failure information about that specific batch. (Maybe it still does.) We used that as a starting point for our filtration tests before using it.  This mostly applied to transparency film. Amateur color film was sold with the idea that the colors were not quite ready but would be after a couple of months storage at room temperature.  Thus amateur film had a lot more variation. 

Edited February 21, 2016 by AlanG

[earleygallery]

James - I guess what I am suggesting is that, foe example, lower grade films stocks from Kodak are not made from the portra film stocks.    I would be shocked if this was the case as the portras are totally different from the gold and ultramax.   

 

Yes, they're different films with different looks. But not better or worse. 'Cheap' film won't give you inferior results and the person who thinks we should only use the most expensive film available in a Leica is simply deluded. 

 

I can give a direct example of using pro film - some time ago I was asked to photograph a load of wooden toys for a small business who were putting a mail order catalogue together. They wanted the same look - all on a black background. I stocked up on a load of pro E6 film and shot the photos, had the films processed at the same time and job done. 

 

Then they asked me a couple of weeks later to take a few more shots as they'd added a few products. Same type of film, same lighting set up, and same lab to process them but the colours were very different. Of course the client was unhappy as they couldn't understand why the trannies shouldn't be identical. 

 

What we're discussing is the thing I really love about film - you pick your film according to the 'look' you're after, saturated or natural colours, high or low grain, you make your decision up front. It's a different mindset to capturing a digital 'file' that's essentially neutral, and then processing it on the computer to look how you want. 

[A miller]

Yes, they're different films with different looks. But not better or worse. 'Cheap' film won't give you inferior results and the person who thinks we should only use the most expensive film available in a Leica is simply deluded. 

 

 

Thanks, James.  I feel your enthusiasm for liberty and free choice and respect for all film stocks.  No we have to talk about how you communicate your feelings.  As I said above, there is nothing wrong with saying what you think and stating that someone else is incorrect as an objective matter and then bring specific examples that support your position.  But you want to avoid name calling or criticizing a person's own belief.

 

I am no fool, believe me.  I just don't agree with you.  

 

And all this talk about a specific desirable "look" that cheap film stocks give that pro-stock can't is really interesting to me. 

 

I am all eyes and would love to see some examples that support this notion...

 

 

[rpavich]

 

.....  But you want to avoid name calling or criticizing a person's own belief.

 

that ship sailed many posts ago, sorry to say. (Not you)

 

 

[A miller]

 

 

.....  But you want to avoid name calling or criticizing a person's own belief.

 

that ship sailed many posts ago, sorry to say. (Not you)

 

 

 

 

I hear you; and point taken.  

[Doc Henry]

Another links  

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

http://photo.net/equipment/film

the first link, it's just to illustrate that the film still has a better definition
all confounded brand and price 
 

One famous photographer told that :

"Each new film is a new sensor"  and he is right  

No need to spend a fortune to acquire a new digital camera every 2-3 years
buy film and analog camera , it's cheaper !

Best

Henry

Edited February 22, 2016 by Doc Henry

[adan]

the first link, it's just to illustrate that the film still has a better definition

 

Oh, Doc, Doc, Doc - links from 10 and 20 years ago? Please..... whatever case you have to make, evidence like that is so faulty as to diminish it.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Doc Henry]

Adan , sorry, but I read what is written but not pay attention to the date

I think put these links to give information for Adam's thread

Rg

Henry

Edited February 22, 2016 by Doc Henry

[rpavich]

Oh, Doc, Doc, Doc - links from 10 and 20 years ago? Please..... whatever case you have to make, evidence like that is so faulty as to diminish it.

 

IS the evidence set forth in each of these articles faulty or is it just a case of it being dated as old? 

 

Just wondering which of those put you off the articles.