What is the current state and future of film availability especially 35mm?

[warden]

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!

 

[GaryFlorida]

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!

I was thinking of making a webpage with profiles of my cameras, specifications, and photos of the cameras and shots with each camera. A page for each of the 12 cameras. I know its been done a million times. Then maybe have a youtube channel also showing each camera and sample photos with some links to films and phot supplies and ebay listings of the same camera for sale. Im no Ken Rockwell but hey it might be good for a few clicks and a few pennies.

 

[pbromaghin]

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.

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.

 

[pbromaghin]

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".

Drew, thank you for this post. I was a software developer for 40 years and nearly all of my code has loooonnnggg since been dumped into the bit bucket. People who think this digital crap is forever are just delusional. I remember 20 years ago this HR dumbass at the ERP software company where I worked saying our records would be digitized and then last forever. I wrote little bits of their HR system and would bet that even now they would have trouble verifying I ever worked there.

 

[rippa_the_hutt]

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.

This is just so true.
I am having an hard time accepting that Canon and Nikon phased out their line of film cameras when it was plainly clear that film was experiencing a definite comeback. 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.
I am more of a late '70s/80's cameras shooter, but still having the possibility to purchase brand new quality equipment if need arise would be very nice.

 

[koraks]

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.

The camera manufacturers have no interest in the film manufacturers. Why would the former care about the latter?

Also keep in mind that both Canon and Nikon have lots of other markets and applications to serve, and to distribute their resources over (incl. engineering). It doesn't make a whole lot of business sense for let's say Canon to move engineers from making equipment for flat screen LCD production to a complex electromechanical product that only a handful of people purchase.

The truth is that neither Nikon nor Canon are camera manufacturers per se. They're diversified companies and one of the things they do is about cameras. For Canon, the imaging group constitutes about 20% of their revenue. Only part of that is related to cameras in the sense discussed here. It's a relatively small part of their business. Nikon is a similar story; imaging products is around 25% of their revenue, and again, cameras (and lenses) are only a part of this segment. And I think we don't even need to touch upon the topic of digital cameras (in whatever form, including surveillance, video etc.) still being massively more relevant economically than film cameras.

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. Pentax, being shielded from the outside world at least from a financial viewpoint, apparently has managed to create a sandbox in which they could do this (Japanese dislike of conflict/confrontation may have helped, as Ricoh might have been hesitant to take any action against it).

I guess what I'm saying mostly is that you need to see the bigger picture. As photography enthusiasts, we're liable to framing Canon & Nikon as camera companies, Fuji and Kodak as film manufacturers, etc. In reality, they're so much more than that. The companies that really focus on film photography are very few and far between, and they're very very small.

 

[rippa_the_hutt]

The camera manufacturers have no interest in the film manufacturers. Why would the former care about the latter?

Because pecunia non olet: more film being burnt means more shutters firing and, consequently, more cameras failing and, hence, more replacements.

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.

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.

 

[Agulliver]

We see Canon and Nikon and we think cameras. But as @koraks says they are much bigger than that.

You see Hyundai and what do you think? Cars? They're one of the world's biggest builders of cargo ships and oil rigs. They're also a buillding construction company. The cars are not the biggest part of their business....but they are the part most of the public see.

 

[koraks]

@rippa_the_hutt you're overestimating the sales potential for film SLR's and underestimating the impact of keeping that technology afloat.

sharing a lot of electromechanical components with the digital reflex cameras

Seen through rose-colored glasses from a couple of miles away, perhaps. From an R&D, CS, manufacturing etc. perspective: not even close.

 

[Angarian]

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.

That isn't a big problem, because today the big majority of film users is younger than 50 years. And a huge percentage is even younger than 35 years. If you look at the interviews of the film manufacturers, if you look at the film posts on social media, youtube etc., you see that very clearly.
I see the same at my local labs, at 'brick&mortar' film/camera shops/labs like Khrome, Fotoimpex, Click&Surr, Nation Photo, Mori, One of Many Cameras, Photografica, Jo Geier etc.
It's definitely already the young(er) generation which is driving the film renaissance.

So that makes the Pentax 17 extremely important for film’s survival. It needs to bring out the teen- and 20-something generation.

See above. I think the Pentax 17 is certainly attractive to this market target group.

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 completely agree.

 

[Agulliver]

Yep, my local brick and mortar store is seeing a lot more younger (under 30) customers. They sold a *lot* of second hand and NOS film cameras in the last 2-3 years, to people too young to have had one when film was king. I also have a wide social circle which includes some friends who are very much younger than me, and at least three of these people are actively looking at getting into 35mm film. This is where the future is. Maybe I've got 20-30 years of photography left in me, by which time these people will be very much seasoned photographers showing the way to the next generation.

The future market isn't about what we want. Like it or not, the future is in what the kids want. And some of that is not going to match what we want or the ways we do photography. However, there's no sign of the products we like disappearing. I am sure I'll be able to buy HP5 for as long as I live.

 

[MattKing]

Camera sales in general have been decreasing precipitously. In particular, digital cameras (other than cel phones).
So what was once a mainstream industry is now a niche. And that niche has its own realities.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

 

[Pieter12]

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.

 

[Bill Burk]

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.

My thought is no. The physics of fogging probably involve some other things that would happen in a lead bag.

But my assessment is, there will always be film and if you get more than a couple rolls you can test the first and shoot the others as they tested. There will never be “no film”.

 

[Milpool]

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).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

That’s interesting information about NYPD Blue (which was appointment viewing for me at the time).

Same. The arc of Andy Sipowicz's story (played by Dennis Franz) is one of the most interesting and well-written in TV history.

 

[GaryFlorida]

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.

Now you tell me! If i knew that it could have gone in the anti xray airport bags and then into the freezer!

 

[Pieter12]

That’s interesting information about NYPD Blue (which was appointment viewing for me at the time).

Another interesting fact about NYPD Blue is the pilot was shot and the look set by Bing Sokolsky, Melvin Sokolsky’s son. Melvin is probably best known for his photos of fashion models suspended in a giant plastic bubble.

 

[MattKing]

The X-ray bags won't really help with a fair percentage of the background radiation that contributes to age related fogging.
I don't even know whether it would help with exposure arising out Radon related issues.
A deep abandoned salt mine is a bit more helpful - have you any of those?

 

[GaryFlorida]

I thought lead was impenetrable by radiation.

 

[GaryFlorida]

Gold also i would think but those bags would be slightly more expensive.

 

[MattKing]

I thought lead was impenetrable by radiation.

Nope - lead will attenuate some radiation, although its effectiveness depends on thickness.

 

[MattKing]

Gold also i would think but those bags would be slightly more expensive.

Gold might actually assist radiation .