With new films like Kodak Ektar 100 being released, is film back on the up?

I, like all of us, recall reading and hearing news articles 4 or 5 years ago saying how the film industry is dying and is no more, and how films were ceased being produced. Yet Fuji Velvia 50 was re-released (Fuji in fact going to great lengths to devise a way of remaking it) and then just the other week Kodak release Kodak Ektar 100 and these are just 2 examples I know of.

I hear many stories similar to my own about photographers who went digital and then reverted back to film, or shoot a mix of both now (I went digi in 2006 and went back to a mix of both film and digi, shooting 50\50 of each in 2008).

I wonder, then, if film is back on the up - not to us APUGers of course, who love it anyway, but I mean globally by the mass market? I wonder if there are any stats? I wonder if Nikon will ever release another F body (like an F7, perhpas) in light of the F6 being their last film body?

Ted

I don't think was ever really on the outs. I think it was just having a hard time redefining its place in the photographic industry. It's going to be around for quite some time. Consumer driven economics will see to that. Your stats are film and film related sales and services are down this year to last by about 15%. Which suits me just fine. Weeds out the riff raff. However profits in those decreased sales are actually increased about 1% (with Kodak anyway).

I'm not worried about my hobby, my love, at all.

I took Kodak reformulating Tmax 400 as a good sign. When people say film is dead I ask them, "yeah then why did Kodak go through all the trouble of making a TMY400-2?

but I mean globally by the mass market?

Click to expand...

We will know the answer to that when world film sales figures are out for '08. Because of the slumping world economy I expect film to take a beating in the last half of '08 and that will probably extend into '09.

Earlier this year both larger local photo stores indicated film sales were up from the year before at that point. Granted, this was before the bottom fell out of pretty much everything. The overall comments they both made were that people were coming back to film for certain looks that they weren't getting with digital, and students/younger people were interested in experimenting with the analog medium.

So, while most industries are down overall, I think film is generally well positioned and it isn't the dying medium it's been made out to be in years past.

I think film will continue to slide down in sales. However it will never crash completely, as I think it will plateau. Many digital-only shooters continue to bring back film to their shooting. Digital will continue to grow, but digital shooters that are either going back to film, or adding film back will grow too. I think film we be around and cheap 50 years from now.d

In the Los Angelese area, both Samy's and FreeStyle have indicated that film and film related sales are up over last year.

mabman said:

Earlier this year both larger local photo stores indicated film sales were up from the year before at that point. Granted, this was before the bottom fell out of pretty much everything. The overall comments they both made were that people were coming back to film for certain looks that they weren't getting with digital, and students/younger people were interested in experimenting with the analog medium.

So, while most industries are down overall, I think film is generally well positioned and it isn't the dying medium it's been made out to be in years past.

Click to expand...

You can read these two stories to get an indication about film sales as reported by Kodak's professional film boss Scott DiSabato.

Dead Link Removed

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/kodak_film_is_far_from_dead_news_271594.html?aff=rss

Note the quoted sales figure in the last bullet of the second article:

"Total sales at Kodak dropped by 5% in the third quarter of 2008, compared to the same three months last year. Overall sales from film capture and traditional photofinishing fell 18%. "

It would be interesting to compare the decline in film sales and revenue with the decline in the values of investment portfolios. Of course it might be hard to decide which of the various statistics to use, and also, it takes time for the data to actually show up.

If my experience is any sort of indicator, I got into the digital thing and shot a lot of it. A couple of hard drive disasters sort of took the wind out of my sales, and I got frustrated with the vast filing issues, finding images. The images became "cheaper". I began to think of it as a medium for graphics, particularly for the web, and for commercial product, catalog, and advertising, where it has many obvious advantages. But the absence of the haptic qualities of the real photograph was disappointing. I got thinking how it was hard enough to keep track of negatives, prints, etc. even with physical materials, but how much easier that was than to herd electron clouds. And another element is that without the downtown commercial side dictating the kinds of products that were available to us, now new and wonderful products are appearing.

It seems to me that evidence appears to be emerging that would support my experience not being unique by any means. If I were out of step, why would we have so many new papers, new chemicals, etc. on the market? I believe that the range of possibilities we have now, having got rid of the big money players, has increased vastly, and continues to do so. The players are smaller, more specialized, and innovative. It's exciting. Film and its supporting materials are emerging as a medium that now stands on its own, rather than being dependent upon what the huge industrial systems demand.

Color? Seems to me that color film has more of a future than color print materials. But that's probably because I guess I've had enough time in the color lab. Who knows, though. I may get excited about it again, most likely after I get rid of all the machines!

I think analog photography is taking its place along with other print media, like intaglio, lithography, etc. It is not going to go away.

I have spoken. So be it!

I am pretty sure that the people that won't go back to film are the amateur non photographer people. That market has too much fun with their phone cameras and sharing images on line, or keeping tons of work in their purse on a small digital camera to be brought out at any time and clicked through. Especially when you see the terrible quality of digital machine prints made off black and white film, there is no way back to film for those people. The labs that serviced the commercial photography industry are really scaled back and in some places it is hard to find processing for chromes. I don't think that will ever come back or quality professional black and white processing. I think I might be the last quality black and white processing available to people in this town.

A resurgence in film seems to me has to come mostly in the art market. And it does seem like there are tons more art photographers than there used to be. Just my head scratching thoughts,
Dennis

We all thank Kodak for keeping film viable, but film is still declining, especially in 35mm where digital is capable of some quality competition. Several local minilabs have shut down recently for lack of business, and I either have to process my own 35mm film or send it 40 miles to one of a limited number of labs in Santa Fe. I understand that MF and sheet film are holding there own and are not declining nearly as fast.

Somehow I have a feeling that those few consumers who had not switched to digital by now will stay on film for a while, as many simply see no purpose in buying a $150 digital camera when their old film one works just fine. This might lead to a slower decline in film sales than overall low-end digital sales, at least for the next year or so

I think the "flat Earth" model created by online shopping will keep film alive, but simultaneously keep it from making a real comeback. Even here in Baton Rouge, LA (a city of over 200,000 with 2 large universities), your choices for local film and processing are pretty limited. I know Kadair's in Baton Rouge had same-day slide service as recently as a few years ago, but now all slide service is high-priced send-out unless I want to drive to ProColor in New Orleans (as nearly as I know, the only remaining E-6 lab in the state). Locally, only Tmax and Fuji 160 are available in 120 -- for 35mm, add Fuji 400H and Provia/Velvia. Everything else must be ordered. So I shop online, which is cheaper and offers me a better selection of films like Ilford, Kodak, and Efke. I buy E-6 mailers for $5 each from B&H and send my slides off to Fuji/Dwayne's, which is where they'd go anyways. The local stores have less incentive to stock and process these films and so the cycle continues.

And it's not like the shops here are total sell-outs either -- the owner of the local Ritz still shoots primarily with his K-1000. It's just that film is becoming a niche product, and won't sell enough outside of places like NYC/LA/Chicago to make it worthwhile to maintain large stocks and processing lines.

c-mo said:

I think the "flat Earth" model created by online shopping will keep film alive, but simultaneously keep it from making a real comeback. Even here in Baton Rouge, LA (a city of over 200,000 with 2 large universities), your choices for local film and processing are pretty limited. I know Kadair's in Baton Rouge had same-day slide service as recently as a few years ago, but now all slide service is high-priced send-out unless I want to drive to ProColor in New Orleans (as nearly as I know, the only remaining E-6 lab in the state). Locally, only Tmax and Fuji 160 are available in 120 -- for 35mm, add Fuji 400H and Provia/Velvia. Everything else must be ordered. So I shop online, which is cheaper and offers me a better selection of films like Ilford, Kodak, and Efke. I buy E-6 mailers for $5 each from B&H and send my slides off to Fuji/Dwayne's, which is where they'd go anyways. The local stores have less incentive to stock and process these films and so the cycle continues.

And it's not like the shops here are total sell-outs either -- the owner of the local Ritz still shoots primarily with his K-1000. It's just that film is becoming a niche product, and won't sell enough outside of places like NYC/LA/Chicago to make it worthwhile to maintain large stocks and processing lines.

Click to expand...

Film will never be again where it was in 1996, although the prediction of it's absolute total and imminent death is greatly exaggerated. Part of this is that 99.999% of all people who take pictures, really don't care about the quality beyond being able to discern the difference between Uncle Abe and Aunt Minnie. For those people a camera phone capable of a web image is perfectly fine. These are the people who considered the camera phone an "upgrade" from the 110 camera, instant Polaroid or disposable that they used before.

For photographers it's different, and they will fall into three groups, those that must be digital, those that for artistic or other reasons find film better/easier and those who will use a mix of film and digital, depending on what they want or need to do. For artistic nature photographs, I like my results on FP4 or PanF, and have spent far too much time on the computer trying to get that look, without being successful. So I will dig out my perfectly functional 30 year old film cameras, which will easily give me the look of FP4, by shooting actual FP4. You can substitute any other film type for FP4 in this case. The real question is which film manufacturers are going to accommodate this new marketplace.

Some developments I think would help, cold process C41 and E6, either 20℃ or even 25℃, would make it easier for home processing, chemistries that are easily mixed in small quantities, with concentrates that keep well. This will make it easier to home process C41 and E6, in a market where the number of labs is limited outside major cities and where the photographer may not shoot a lot of film. It might even be helpful to have a completely new process where you can process one way for negatives and another for slides from the same film.

I would have thought China's rise in living standards would mean a lot more film use, there's obviously a big rise in digital too, but as far as I am aware the traditional 35mm film camera is more widely owned. I seem to remember Kodak having a big push in China a few years back as they sought to move away from the US film market.

Until China breaks as a major film user we'll be okay, I wouldn't say that's due anytime soon, since the majority of Chinese can barely afford a TV let alone a digi cam. The day will come though, and when it does, that will be the biggest challenge for film.

It will always be available one way or another I think, even if it's produced by small specialists.

donbga said:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/kodak_film_is_far_from_dead_news_271594.html?aff=rss[/URL]

Note the quoted sales figure in the last bullet of the second article:

"Total sales at Kodak dropped by 5% in the third quarter of 2008, compared to the same three months last year. Overall sales from film capture and traditional photofinishing fell 18%. "

Click to expand...

I hate when companies say things like that - bundling "film capture and traditional photofinishing" in one lump profit/loss is fairly useless to everyone, as their photofinishing business is separate from their film manufacturing business.

As they've already announced they're downsizing/eliminating Qualex for the photofinishing, we can't know how much if any of that 18% is actually film sales (a separate topic, but Qualex might be a victim of the 1-hr shops, as with our increasingly "instant society" people may just want their film faster, and may not reflect on the viability of film sales themselves).

Yes, as some have commented, film labs have closed and film sales are taking a beating. However, what part of that is attributable to film alone and what part is attributable to the economy? Here in Southwest Florida, for instance, Harmon Photo, which had been the premier pro film lab in our area for decades, just recently closed after “going digital” a few years ago. Was Harmon’s closing due to it “going digital”, or was it due to the economy?

Besides the Kodak figures quoted above, Fujifilm also reported (in the latest quarterly report, a little over 2 months ago) that traditional photo product sales had declined significantly YoY. The quarterly presentation can be found here: http://www.fujifilmholdings.com/en/pdf/investors/finance/materials/ff_fy_2009q2_001.pdf

Note the use of phrases such as: "shrinking of the color film market" on various pages. YoY declines on "Color Film and Others" was -34% !! That number does not included color paper or equipment, which was broken out separately - see pg. 3. Pg. 9 has a further breakout of actual revenue for each segment and product, where we can see for the quarter that the "Color film and other" category brought in 14.1 billion JPY (a little less than $140 million.) This was for last summer, so with the financial conditions worsening it will be interesting to see the numbers for this quarter, and next.

So, to answer the OP's question - No, the arrival of a new (or "improved") film this year does not signal the reversal of trends regarding film and its eventual demise.

While I do see b&w film (35mm and LF) hanging on for a very long time... beyond my own lifetime probably... these quarterly reports from Kodak and Fujifilm are not without importance. I enjoy film (b&w mainly) for its artistic use, though if I had to produce images for a living I would be doing digital.

This last year sales of film have declined, but that is just inevitable. Film has lost its connection to family memories, like it was just a few short years ago. I see people coming in with their used equipment looking to trade it in for "the latest and greatest" digital equipment because they are tired of film. Many people don't mind shooting it, similar to myself. I find that it is superior to digital(that i can afford) for many of the things that i photograph.

I shoot mostly 6x7cm and 4x5 sheet film. Mostly color and b/w negative. I enlarge to 11x14 and 16x20 and have had NO problems with details becoming obscured because of lack of resolution. Many say that film is superior, and in my humble opinion, i think it is in many situations. For people like wedding and event photographers, also news/media, digital is a god-send. For fine-art and landscape people like myself, film has inherent qualities that digital takes more work than I'm willing to do in order to attain.

I've assisted for photographers, and in a few cases, been able to use medium format digital backs (phase one and leaf), and i have been very impressed by the quality straight out of the back. I would say that up to 24"x32" it is extremely sharp, but I still like the look of film. I personally don't care if it isn't as sharp, I'll just take out my 4x5 and shoot it on that, and I can go to 40x50 if i want to.

Many of the professionals that i interact with on a daily basis are starting to use film again for many jobs. Not because of the look, but because they don't want to think as much as they would with digital. They've also found that by NOT being able to see every shot until the film is processed and contacted, they constantly search for more, and a better shot than the one before.

Remember, digital is not a revolution to many, simply an evolution.

this is my humble opinion after all

I still would think Ansel Adams would shoot film if he were still alive. But that is just a guess


One thing to remember: digital costs more in the long run. If you were to pay yourself anywhere from 60-100 dollars per hour for retouching(assuming you are a professional retoucher), then digital would cost more than many are willing to spend. With film, you HAVE to get it right before the shot is made(speaking in pre-photoshop language). Color balance, density and focus would have to be spot on if you were doing color separation(watch the dean collins finelight video series).

people are still buying brand new leica m7 systems and lenses. not poor people obviously =), but people who know quality, rather than quantity. saw a guy at samy's the other day get one with a 50 f2 summi and a 35mm . dropped somewhere in the neighborhood of 15K for the setup after no tax(sale) and 40 rolls of hp5 and 400nc. amazing really

I think the b/w 35 mm film will be around for a long time. I mean, b/w was almost a niche market 25 years ago. I have got my Contax 137 refurbished and use the Zeiss lenses both on the 137 and on my EOS 40D. I really like using both systems and the look I get from the b/w film is very nice. Now, if only I could set up my darkroom somewhere...
Just my €0.02.

DanielStone said:

people are still buying brand new leica m7 systems and lenses. not poor people obviously =), but people who know quality, rather than quantity. saw a guy at samy's the other day get one with a 50 f2 summi and a 35mm . dropped somewhere in the neighborhood of 15K for the setup after no tax(sale) and 40 rolls of hp5 and 400nc. amazing really

Click to expand...

$15K for a new M7 and a new 50 f/2 Summicron and a new 35mm Summicron?

He definitely paid too much!

hmmm...

Personally, I think that if Kodak put all the money they wasted developing new T-Max 400 and Ektar 100 into ADVERTISING and PROMOTING film in general, we would be much better off. Why on Earth does anyone need another 100 speed film that is only available in 35mm? We have at least seven other ones, and that is just what I can name off the top of my head (Kodak Portra VC and NC, Kodak Gold, Fuji S and C, Fuji Superia, Fuji Reala). Why one Earth does anyone need an improved T-Max when we have old T-Max that is practically no different? They need to spend their money lobbying schools to stick with film, not developing new crap that no one needs. If anything, these products are just more evidence that Kodak is devoted to nothing except driving themselves into the ground. It's like a drowning person in the middle of the ocean thousands of miles from anything trying to come up with ingenious ways to desalinate sea water.

2F/2F said:

Personally, I think that if Kodak put all the money they wasted developing new T-Max 400 and Ektar 100 into ADVERTISING and PROMOTING film in general, we would be much better off. Why on Earth does anyone need another 100 speed film that is only available in 35mm? We have at least seven other ones, and that is just what I can name off the top of my head (Kodak Portra VC and NC, Kodak Gold, Fuji S and C, Fuji Superia, Fuji Reala). Why one Earth does anyone need an improved T-Max when we have old T-Max that is practically no different? They need to spend their money lobbying schools to stick with film, not developing new crap that no one needs. If anything, these products are just more evidence that Kodak is devoted to nothing except driving themselves into the ground. It's like a drowning person in the middle of the ocean thousands of miles from anything trying to come up with ingenious ways to desalinate sea water.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I think we are awfully hard on Kodak, here we have a company that thought they were at the end of their era, and tried to adapt to the new thing, that didn't work, so now they are trying to go back, and put the pieces back together, which doesn't seem to be working so well either.

I think the updated Tmax is a better idea then the new Ektar, but that's only because I think B&W, due to it's artisan use, has more long term staying power. Now Kodak needs to start making the film in 120/220 sizes and come up with a lower speed B&W film to round out that end of the market. A T-grain 50 ISO Techpan would probably be a good seller, heck I might even try that one.

I'd settle for Kodak making the darn Ektar100 available in Australia.
So far, it's the definition of empty space...

2F/2F said:

... They need to spend their money lobbying schools to stick with film....

Click to expand...

hear! hear! You got that right for sure.

I've come around 180°. I was really angry at Kodak for abandoning the finest products in the world. Then, and this was largely due to the reasoned explanations given by PE, who surprised me by having sympathy for them even as they reduced his retirement benefits, I recognized the pickle they are in and what they MUST do to survive. Nonetheless, it is very hard to ride two horses, not knowing which one is going to get there. I think they are sort of fishing, right now. It is a pretty hard world for all of us, but think of how hard it must be to turn a supertanker on a dime.

(I don't suppose I'm supposed to say this but nobody told me not to): One of my friends (a marketing whiz) consulted with them on their Easyshare program. It seems that people (like me, how about you?) were storing lots of images up there, and not buying any prints. Storage was virtually unlimited, at least for awhile. What he thought that they believed people needed was to be able to get their pictures printed, and just couldn't get past the print mindset. You know, "You push the button, we do the rest". They wanted to make and sell prints, and were having trouble with the idea that not everyone wanted that; more people probably want to make their own prints, but really needed storage. They weren't selling prints, and they were giving the storage away. He was very impressed by their sincerity, and he is not easy to snow. They are really nice people who had nothing but the best of motives, as he saw it; just at a crossroads and not knowing which way to turn.

I really hope that they've got this thing worked out, because I really want them to succeed and prosper so they can provide us with what we need. I don't think we will ever have my beloved Ektalure again, or 70mm Aero infrared, or 2475 Recording film, or Super XX. But if they could stick with a smaller menu of really great products, and use their R&D to make genuine improvements that weren't redundant (you know, CLEAR choices), I think we'd all benefit and we would LOVE them! I have loved their products over my entire life, really. I might love a few of them still. The jury is still out. I'm using more Ilford right now in my own work.

A LOT of schools have abandoned film, and more want to. When we were getting a remodel where I work, the facilities director, a powerful player on campus, was heard saying in a planning meeting: "Why do we need a photo lab anyway? They make digital cameras, don't they?" That's how close we came, but fortunately, it came down on our side; a supportive admin, for a change. I am fortunate to work in a very good place, even though I almost have to pay them to work there. It's worth it.

Ilford has a very long history of supporting photo programs in schools. Kodak's efforts have not been as helpful. They would provide these bargain packs of a few sheets of each of several papers and a couple of films at a substantial discount but students didn't like it much. They'd buy one, be disappointed because they couldn't gain any control over the material before they ran out, and they'd never buy another. They went for Ilford every time. A 25 sheet package of RC paper, all the same, and two rolls of HP5, at an attractive price. I'm sorry that Kodak wasn't able to do something like that; it makes it easy for students to learn, whereas their approach just muddied the waters. It really doesn't help students to have too many choices; they get lost. And let me tell you, STUDENTS WANT REAL PHOTOGRAPHY! Sure, enrollments are down, but ask them. The ones who want easy credits just don't sign up. The ones who are really interested do sign up and they stick. Ilford has "hooked" a lot of students; years later, they are still shooting HP5 and printing on Multigrade, though some have abandoned the RC.

So, film.

Larry runs on again.