Film's Comeback

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But it never left! (I just wanted to get that out of the way)

https://petapixel.com/2021/12/06/new-study-confirms-there-is-still-demand-for-new-film-cameras/

[chrism]

I've debated this elsewhere. Used camera prices are rising now, both as there is some demand from graduates of the Lomography University, but I'm afraid most of the rise is related to dwindling supply. We had our happy time when used cameras were cheap and plentiful, and we could fairly easily buy the cameras that were beyond our means when we were younger. Both if that is the case - supply is limited and thus prices rise - and if I'm wrong, the outcome will be the same, because old cameras fail and the techs who knew how to service them are retiring. Spare parts? Better buy another for spare parts and send it with the 'good' one to the tech, if you can find one. Leica enjoys a special situation here, being the only film camera maker still selling new. Even the Nikon F6 is discontinued. I'll be brave and point out that Leica is not the solution that will save this situation; their products are far too expensive for the wider market and some of us prefer the SLR over the rangefinder. The rumours that all film Leicas are assembled by one guy may or may not be true, but I doubt the company is going to spend much on training new techs for that job. All of this means the market for film will contract. I suppose a sparkly rainbow-coloured unicorn with a magic wand might make Harman, Alaris and Fuji talk to each other and arrange for them to back production of a simple, sturdy SLR or rangefinder with lenses (an old design from Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Cosina would do) so that there will be a continuing market for the film they make. No need for new R&D, just a manual focus camera with a cloth shutter and maybe a battery for a meter, but nothing beyond that. I doubt this will happen. I suspect they will choose to make the short-term decisions, increase the price of film, drop out of the business one by one until, one day, the last man standing (probably Harman) will bow out.

If it came right down to it, none of us film addicts would swap to digital if our choice was limited to a basic Nikon F, Canon Rebel, Pentax K1000 or even Cosina's plastic wonder, the FM10. China has no track record in camera production after the Seagull (yes, I'd probably even use one of those if that's all there was), and even I would sacrifice film to avoid having mainland China take over the film camera production that used to take place in Taiwan, so we probably need not look in that direction for salvation. I don't know if this is clear to everyone, nor even clear to the mass-market and boutique film manufacturers remaining: old cameras are dying and rather faster than we would like. Generally there are neither spare parts nor technicians to repair them. The future of film manufacture is, unfortunately, circumscribed by this unavoidable fact. If nobody steps up to make a camera, the film manufacturers will stop production. Personally, having enough film in the freezer, enough chemicals in powder form, and a bunch of old cameras all being serviced as best as they can be is my solution. But my future is distinctly limited, and it's easy for me to make selfish preparations. To be practical, the options are:

1. Whoever now owns the design of the discontinued Copal SLR vertical metal focal plane shutter should sell it to the Chinese. A company that made one of the last cheap SLRs using it could sell the design (that's almost certainly Cosina).

2. There's little point in talking about older designs; the tooling and machinery that made the MX, K1000, OM-series and classic Nikons and Canons is not only trashed, it has rusted away by now. The same is true of all the Contax and Leica production lines that went to the USSR after WW2. They aren't coming back.

3. Could Leica sell their film camera business? Not to anyone wanting to make a profit would seem to be the right analysis. It would be like Rolex selling their mechanical watch making business to China so they can make money selling it to the mass market. It just won't work.

It's an awful thing to say, but we are not going to turn out to be in the same position as people who like to listen to vinyl. There, a little extra effort on the part of the user resulted in better sound, and a willingness to pay the premium for a vinyl release. It takes a massive increase in effort to use film as these days you develop it yourself and scan it. The desire to do all that for a result that is different from a digital result, but not in any way objectively better just does not exist. Go and buy a spare camera or two right now is the only sensible thing to do if you want to have an unlimited film future. Unlimited, that is, until you are the only one left using them and you can't buy film any more!

God, I hope I am wrong in everything above!

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Kl@usW.]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb chrism:

Go and buy a spare camera or two right now is the only sensible thing to do if you want to have an unlimited film future.

Good idea. Even better is the idea to buy one ( or more ) cameras that don't depend on advanced electronic parts such as LCDs, integrated circuitry and motors. These parts, once defect, will disable the whole camera since no spare parts will be  available. See Nikon, Canon, Hasselblad 202, 203, 205--anything with an LCD is  doomed.  I think there will be film forever, only that the production will shift from big to small to very small production lines--with prices adequately moving upwards. As there will be benzine for our vintage cars--only you will have to buy it  in 5 liter canisters. 

[Doug A]

In North America all of the parts necessary to keep a Model A Ford (1928-1931) running are readily available, as is the requisite expertise. This is not true of any other US cars of the same vintage. But I suspect that it may be true of particular "obsolete" cars in other markets. 

A similar situation has existed for the last 80 years with the Barnack Leicas. But as interest in actually using the Barnacks has waned, so has the support network. So what is the equivalent more recent film camera, sold in significant numbers, all mechanical, battery free, and basically bulletproof?

I have never picked up a Nikon F in a thrift shop, yard sale or camera store that was not mechanically functional. The slow speeds might be off, the controls may be stiff to turn, but they would all focus, wind on, and operate the shutter. And because of their ubiquity any repair department of any used camera retailer can fix those issues. Another point in their favor, ironically, is that few of the Photomic finders work, even if a suitable battery can be sourced. This reduces their attractiveness to the hipsters, keeping the prices down and the availability up. I think the prism finder Nikon F may turn out to be the next Model A Ford of film cameras. I also think the prism finders by themselves might turn out to be a good investment. 

[Ambro51]

Well we can always go back to the 1860’s  technology and use cameras made from mahogany glass and brass, and “film” that’s glass plates and a few bottles of chemicals.   ••••. I’ve done All those things and made thousands of images.  ~~~~. People a few hundred years from now will be able to do exactly those same things.  

Edited December 9, 2021 by Ambro51

[pgk]

8 hours ago, Ambro51 said:

Well we can always go back to the 1860’s  technology and use cameras made from mahogany glass and brass..... 

And any competent woodworker can repair and make replacement parts. Ironically it is the film holders that are the trickiest things to reproduce and many were camera specific. It is even possible to 'make' viable lenses from currently available optical components.

The downside of film (of any sort) is the environmental problems associated with spent chemistry. Perhaps companies could look at this and come up with viable and potentially profitable disposal solutions before legislation finally prevents the use of some of the (less than pleasant) chemicals used.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That is what finished Kodachrome off...

[pgk]

33 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That is what finished Kodachrome off...

And the Cibachrome print process. Many more chmicals used in processing are less than pleasant (but at least we have stopped using cyanide as a fixer!).

[jaapv]

I still have some Cibachrome prints from Kodachrome 25 Beautiful!

[pgk]

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I still have some Cibachrome prints from Kodachrome 25 Beautiful!

So do I. Fabulous prints and one has been on my mother's wall for 40 years and shows no sign of fading.

[Ambro51]

I once viewed whole plate tinted daguerreotypes on a huge parlor stereoscope.   It was, in all of photography, the closest I ever felt to “being there”.  

[willeica]

None of the above is surprising.

There are more than enough film cameras around to supply the growing market, particularly among young people. And people like Camera Rescue in Finland are training young technicians. Even Leitz Auction/Leica Shop in Vienna has a young technician who I met in Wetzlar in September. He had previously been trained as a watch technician.

The main supply will remain second hand cameras which are either still working or have been restored. New film Leicas are not really relevant to the overall picture, but the much larger amount of older Leicas are. As a collector, I have a large number of Leicas and other makes which I can use anytime I want to shoot film. Most of them are working and if one gives trouble I can pick up another. I also have a friend who is an expert CLA man and who has restored my cameras and those of my friends. I agree about the NIkon F which is the sturdiest 35mm camera that I have used, edging out the Leica M3 which I also love. 

Yes, film and processing are now expensive, but a lot of people, both young and old, like the whole tactile nature of the process. Young digital natives in particular like a change from all of the 'on screen ' stuff. In my own country there many people shooting film on older Leica screw mounts and Ms, just because they like doing it and they like the results.

As I pointed out in another thread today superb photographs were produced in the 19th Century, even before the advent of film. I recently had the privilege of going through a collection of 170 year old waxed calotypes which were of astonishing quality. The photographer was also a renowned lens maker. I am trying to ensure that the calotypes end up in a safe haven. Ambro51 is right. You could still do the same thing today and 100 years from now, if you could live that long.

Finally on the issue of the environment, to fully judge this you might need to look at the effects created by chemical processes and put them against the amount of energy used by electrically powered digital cameras using lithium batteries and with a lot of plastic parts. 

William

Edited December 9, 2021 by willeica

[bags27]

16 hours ago, pgk said:

So do I. Fabulous prints and one has been on my mother's wall for 40 years and shows no sign of fading.

I'm looking at one now I too in 1979, just like it was yesterday.

[bags27]

Kodak doubled film sales the past 4 years:

https://kosmofoto.com/2020/01/eastman-kodaks-still-film-production-more-than-doubled-in-the-last-four-years/

[adan]

3 hours ago, bags27 said:

Kodak doubled film sales the past 4 years:

https://kosmofoto.com/2020/01/eastman-kodaks-still-film-production-more-than-doubled-in-the-last-four-years/

That's good - it is certainly better than halving in the last 4 years.

But don't forget just how far film fell, before starting to recover. Sales at the nadir around 2012 were about 0.02% (2/10ths of 1%) of the sales peak around the year 2000.

Doubling every 4 years, it will take 36 years before film is back to even half of the peak volume, which is where I might start calling it "a comeback."

I mean, if you had 1 million dollars invested, and a market crash left you with only $2000 - and you managed to re-invest that and make it grow to $5000 in 4 years, you're still $995,000 in the hole.  

It will be a long hard slog to get your $1 million back.

But as I said - it is better than the alternative. $0.00

............

As someone whose MA thesis was based on a similar survey (with a more targeted response group - not self-selected), I give the author chops for his effort. A lot of work to tabulate and analyze. And a fairly good set of questions. (I put off completing mine a couple of years until I could get a Mac Plus, with Appleworks for writing, databasing the respondents and spreadsheeting the responses, and a Laserwriter for slick output with charts. Chi-square forever!)

...........

It is funny how things come around again. Back around 1980 the "hipster camera" of choice was..... a plain-prism black Nikon F!

It was and is a good choice - tough as nails and relatively obsolescence-proof (with no meter connection at all, it will work equally well with non-AI, AI, AI-s and even the first couple of generations of AF Nikkors.)

My own film ride these days (which contributed to that doubling since 2016) is 6x6 with a Mamiya 6 and 50-75-150 lenses, plus a Hassy SWC. It's hip to be square.

 

Edited December 10, 2021 by adan

[bags27]

1 minute ago, adan said:

That's good - it is certainly better than halving in the last 4 years.

But don't forget just how far film fell, before starting to recover. Sales at the nadir around 2012 were about 0.02% (2/10ths of 1%) of the sales peak around the year 2000.

Doubling every 4 years, it will take 36 years before film is back to even half of the peak volume, which is where I might start calling it "a comeback."

I mean, if you had 1 million dollars invested, and a market crash left you with only $2000 - and you managed to re-invest that and make it grow to $5000 in 4 years, you're still $995,000 in the hole.  

It will be a long hard slog to get your $1 million back.

But as I said - it is better than the alternative. $0.00

............

As someone whose MA thesis was based on a similar survey (with a more targeted response group - not self-selected), I give the author chops for his effort. A lot of work to tabulate and analyze. And a fairly good set of questions. (I put off completing mine a couple of years until I could get a Mac Plus, with Appleworks for writing, databasing the respondents and spreadsheeting the responses, and a Laserwriter for slick output with charts. Chi-square forever!)

...........

It is funny how things come around again. Back around 1980 the "hipster camera" of choice was..... a plain-prism black Nikon F!

It was and is a good choice - tough as nails and relatively obsolescence-proof (with no meter connection at all, it will work equally well with non-AI, AI, AI-s and even the first couple of generations of AF Nikkors.)

My own film ride these days (whihc contributed to that doubling since 2016) is 6x6 with a Mamiya 6 and 50-75-150 lenses, plus a Hassy SWC. It's hip to be square.

 

Thanks for all this good stuff. I'm wondering how Ilford has done, since, while only producing B&W, they tend to sell a lot of it to passionate photographers. Kodak probably gets mainly commercially processed and Ilford probably in one's own cellar....I'm guessing.

[willeica]

1 hour ago, adan said:

That's good - it is certainly better than halving in the last 4 years.

But don't forget just how far film fell, before starting to recover. Sales at the nadir around 2012 were about 0.02% (2/10ths of 1%) of the sales peak around the year 2000.

Doubling every 4 years, it will take 36 years before film is back to even half of the peak volume, which is where I might start calling it "a comeback."

I mean, if you had 1 million dollars invested, and a market crash left you with only $2000 - and you managed to re-invest that and make it grow to $5000 in 4 years, you're still $995,000 in the hole.  

It will be a long hard slog to get your $1 million back.

But as I said - it is better than the alternative. $0.00

 

 

1 hour ago, bags27 said:

Thanks for all this good stuff. I'm wondering how Ilford has done, since, while only producing B&W, they tend to sell a lot of it to passionate photographers. Kodak probably gets mainly commercially processed and Ilford probably in one's own cellar....I'm guessing.

Some reading here and not just for Adan and bags27. Do these look like companies that are about to disappear and I'm leaving out Fuji which is a massive conglomerate and not representative?

https://www.ilfordphoto.com

https://www.kodak.com/en

https://shop.lomography.com/en/films

https://camerarescue.org

And there are plenty more to find and read. This is an issue which requires looking outside the 'Leica hothouse' to fully appreciate what is happening.

William 

[pgk]

19 hours ago, willeica said:

Finally on the issue of the environment, to fully judge this you might need to look at the effects created by chemical processes and put them against the amount of energy used by electrically powered digital cameras using lithium batteries and with a lot of plastic parts. 

Indeed. We need to sort out recycling of sophisticated electronics in the very near future. Photographic chemistry, and especially any which releases silver into the environment, is not as benign as we might like it to be. The chemicals are being increasingly controlled and one UK company has ceased trading in part due to chemical supply problems (which are complex and not just legislative). The solution is probably for there to be very effective processing labs with full silver recovery and good waste chemical disposal. A business opportunity no doubt.

[Ambro51]

Film has priced me out.   Stereo....is Dead.  $32 minimum to buy and process one roll.  Add in at least $10 for mounts.   I’d pay this if I took a Grand Vacation and a Cruise....but that’s not in the cards.  Shooting, just for the hell of it...nope.  ••••••••••• Seeking a way Out I went SMALL..

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Ten images per roll, 14x14mm.   Except for the Crystar camera, each of these produce quite good images.   Doing the $ math,  1 roll , 150 feet, of AGFA ASP400S film ($55) makes 4,500 negatives!!!!   That, Friends, is cheap film shooting, working out to $0.0122 per image. 

Plus, that whole handful of camera cost about $235.

Edited December 10, 2021 by Ambro51

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sailronin]

Black and white film is "cheap as chips" if you buy 100 foot rolls and process at home (Dec. 2021 Ilford HP5+ was about $90 USD, Rollei RPX 100 was $85). A bulk loader lasts decades (one of mine still in use was purchased in 1982), reusable cassettes are under $2 each and last for at least 10 rolls before the felt goes, developers (Rodinal, HC110 use very low dilutions so the concentrate will do hundreds of rolls), fixer and stop bath, a daylight tank and changing bag and you're in business. Sure initial set up costs are more expensive than shooting thousands of pics on an SD card but the equipment lasts and in general film photographers  shoot fewer images aiming for higher quality over quantity.

 

Image below HP5+ dev in HC110B

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited December 10, 2021 by Sailronin