Sounds achievable to me. So in 2027 you’ll be needing some film, and I’m bargaining you’ll be spoiled for choice. Have fun, and share some pics as you go!
My goal is to shoot 1 roll of film per month using a different camera for each month of the year (i have 12 cameras).
So for the amount of film I have in my cache, provided its not deteriorated from being expired (its been in the fridge since new and is 3 to 8 years expired now) , 34 rolls, 34 months so almost 3 years worth, if I can keep up with shooting, developing and printing or scanning and ideally uploading on here, a roll per month.
Sounds achievable to me. So in 2027 you’ll be needing some film, and I’m bargaining you’ll be spoiled for choice. Have fun, and share some pics as you go!
Eastman Kodak had publicly announced some years ago (before the pandemic AFAIK) that they are hiring more than 300 new workers to increase the film production. At that time demand for photo film had already doubled (said Kodak), and for movie film it even more than doubled.
New investments in machinery had also be announced. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that EK will stop film production.
Use it or loose it. Use it as much as you can, and introduce others to the joy of darkroom work. Best you can do.
Ilford and Foma have introduced new BW papers to the market. They would not had done that if they would have thought the market is not sustainable.
At the beginning of this century it was said "film is dead", and that around 2010 all film production would be shut down. But instead a film revival happened in the last years.
Film has survived the first digital revolution in the first decade of this century (digital cameras).
And after that it even survived the second digital revolution (smartphone photography) in the second decade.
Conclusion:
Film as a photographic medium is very robust. There are millions of photographers worldwide who keep it alive.
Is it trendy? is it larping? or is it just old tech that is coming to a stop like an old bus pulling into the bus station on its no
I think there are a lot more real doom n' gloom scenarios around the world to worry about rather than the destiny of photo film. I'll be gone long before it is. Probably nearly every form of what is currently considered state of the art digital imaging will be gone first too, and replaced with something else. I'd rather leave behind actual handmade prints people can handle and see with their own eyes rather than something doomed to cyberspace. If there is another world war, it might very well begin with massive attacks upon cyber infrastructure, including the "Cloud".
But we are getting old and boomers will age out of the marketplace completely in the next 20 years. The median of us (boomers) retired in Dec ‘22. So that makes the Pentax 17 extremely important for film’s survival. It needs to bring out the teen- and 20-something generation. If they market a 24 square and a real 35mm, that could solidify it. Should I care what happens to my hobby after I die? Hell yes.
It looks almost like a challenge: we have photosensitive materials manufacturers having an hard time satisfying demand and the two major camera manufacturers retiring their line.
Because pecunia non olet: more film being burnt means more shutters firing and, consequently, more cameras failing and, hence, more replacements.The camera manufacturers have no interest in the film manufacturers. Why would the former care about the latter?
True if it meant new product development, but we're talking about equipment sharing a lot of electromechanical components with the digital reflex cameras that is (was!) already in production so no active development investments would be required. But sure enough, I don't have access to Canon's yearly ledgers so I have no quantitative idea of their business: I just guess that those cameras only required a (not so distant from the digital reflex) production line active to get some money from the photographer whose equipment stopped working.If businesses like Canon and Nikon would divert substantial resources to something like film cameras, investors would balk - in the face of markets like healthcare, energy, semiconductors etc. that are massive and show consistent double-digit growth, they just can't justify a hobby project.
sharing a lot of electromechanical components with the digital reflex cameras
But we are getting old and boomers will age out of the marketplace completely in the next 20 years. The median of us (boomers) retired in Dec ‘22.
So that makes the Pentax 17 extremely important for film’s survival. It needs to bring out the teen- and 20-something generation.
If they market a 24 square and a real 35mm, that could solidify it. Should I care what happens to my hobby after I die? Hell yes.
I used to work on the Agfa Motion Picture Film advertising account. Cinematographers absolutely loved their negative film, it had a fabulous look and dynamic range. If anyone remembers the TV series "NYPD Blue" that was all shot on Agfa film. However, Agfa developed (no pun) a print film that had a polyester base and used less water to process. Unfortunately, it also had a tendency to separate from the emulsion. That pretty much spelled the end for Agfa Motion Picture Film and I would speculate, the end of Agfa film altogether.It's the same overall system, and high enough motion picture film volume is indeed a key to keeping the line going, but I doubt there is nearly as much going the other way. I can envision say Tri-X going away with motion picture film remaining viable, but not the reverse.
A fair bit of all this crystal ball gazing with respect to the forward-looking part of OP's question has to do with whether or not one thinks the so-called film resurgence, renaissance etc. is sustainable. If it is, it is also perhaps (or perhaps not) worth asking what kinds of films there will be demand for (quality, price). A lot of things have annoyed me about this, but that's just me. Nobody has to agree.
What is background radiation? Could it penetrate a lead lined box?
If the speed degrading fog we’ve experienced with fast film from 1970 or so is due to background radiation a lead box could have prevented it. But that makes an assumption we don’t know is the culprit. Often when we say it’s background radiation you can assume it’s a guess.
But sure! Keep a lead box and Geiger counter handy. Your lead box might be the only supply of film.
I test enough old film to know the Panatomic-X will be fine, and any other film might be fogged but can still be used to take pictures at the speed you get by testing.
They used to sell lead-lined pouches for carrying film through airport X-Ray machines. I think I may still have one somewhere. So you could try to find some of those to shield your film from background radiation if that is a concern.
I used to work on the Agfa Motion Picture Film advertising account. Cinematographers absolutely loved their negative film, it had a fabulous look and dynamic range. If anyone remembers the TV series "NYPD Blue" that was all shot on Agfa film. However, Agfa developed (no pun) a print film that had a polyester base and used less water to process. Unfortunately, it also had a tendency to separate from the emulsion. That pretty much spelled the end for Agfa Motion Picture Film and I would speculate, the end of Agfa film altogether.
That’s interesting information about NYPD Blue (which was appointment viewing for me at the time).
They used to sell lead-lined pouches for carrying film through airport X-Ray machines. I think I may still have one somewhere. So you could try to find some of those to shield your film from background radiation if that is a concern.
That’s interesting information about NYPD Blue (which was appointment viewing for me at the time).
I thought lead was impenetrable by radiation.
Gold also i would think but those bags would be slightly more expensive.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?