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

wogster said:

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.

Click to expand...

No introduction of ANY product is going to save film, or even help it in any large amount. Film companies need to spend their money shoving film down peoples' throats, not introducing new products. The problem is not the products; it's the market. Advertising, campaigning, and lobbying for film will change the market more than any product will...maybe not enough, but better than introducing new crap that no one needs whatsoever.

I doubt that film needs 'saving'. What we need to do is allow the manufacturers to manage the decline in sales down to a level where it can be profitable for them to continue. Film is becoming a niche product for hobbyists and professionals but I would strongly argue that it can remain profitable at that level in a global market. The days of film as a mass medium are over but I strongly suspect that we'll see a decline in digital consumer cameras as well, as the majority of 'happy snappers' will be more than happy with the quality delivered by their mobile phones. The problem for 'film' - which will ensure it remains a niche product - is that there aren't many cameras being made for it these days.

I might be new to this but I think the new Ektar rocks...

Ade-oh said:

I doubt that film needs 'saving'. What we need to do is allow the manufacturers to manage the decline in sales down to a level where it can be profitable for them to continue. Film is becoming a niche product for hobbyists and professionals but I would strongly argue that it can remain profitable at that level in a global market.

Click to expand...

I think this is the most accurate view myself. (Not that anyone has crowned me a marketing guru, mind you.)

If we compare wet darkroom imaging vs. the digital onslaught to the oil painting vs. photography onslaught of the late 19th century, you can see that even a hundred years later there's a profitable niche market for tubes of paint. I don't think Grumbacher is on the edge of going under, and I know there are other players in the field that I'm not aware of. I really believe that in 20 more years, maybe fewer, film and photochemicals will be in the arts and crafts stores alongside the paints. I'm really not even sure this is a "bad" thing. It's just a "different" thing.

And I think if Kodak, or Ilford, or even Paterson, would put together a reasonable 'kit' that had everything you needed including a well done DVD instruction video to get a completed roll of B&W film suitable to shove into the ubiquitous scanner nearly everyone owns, they could probably sell them in a big box for Birthday/Christmas/Anniversary/You-Name-a-Holiday presents.

Rather than trying to slow the inevitable, embrace it and profit from it.

MB

Ade-oh said:

I doubt that film needs 'saving'. What we need to do is allow the manufacturers to manage the decline in sales down to a level where it can be profitable for them to continue.

Click to expand...

Amen. The business people involved in the actual companies (Fujifilm, Kodak, etc.) and the engineers they employ are better situated and prepared to navigate the film industry's tail than some people want to allow.

Let them do it to the best of their abilities... What remains will be smaller than today, but then it will also be sustainable for another generation of artists and hobbyists!

SamWeiss said:

Amen. The business people involved in the actual companies (Fujifilm, Kodak, etc.) and the engineers they employ are better situated and prepared to navigate the film industry's tail than some people want to allow.

Let them do it to the best of their abilities... What remains will be smaller than today, but then it will also be sustainable for another generation of artists and hobbyists!

Click to expand...

This may actually be the reasoning behind some of the new products, to make for products that are cheaper to manufacture in smaller quantities. Being able to manufacture a roll of film for $1/roll is easy when your making 100,000,000 rolls a year. It's very difficult when your manufacturing 10,000 rolls a year, you have some price room, but not a lot, because if film gets too expensive then there is always digital, where many of the costs are not directly contributed to photography.

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...

First, there is a limit to how much advertising can increase sales. It would certainly help for Kodak to advertise film enough to keep everyone aware of its existence and its benefits, but excess advertising would do no good.

Second, you must keep developing new films if you are to remain in that business. It's not a matter that the existing films are poor. It is a matter of maintaining the knowledge and techniques for film development. If the knowledge base goes away, it would be only a few years before it would be impossible to develop a new film or to manufacture one consistently. That is the case in every technological field.

nworth said:

Second, you must keep developing new films if you are to remain in that business. It's not a matter that the existing films are poor. It is a matter of maintaining the knowledge and techniques for film development. If the knowledge base goes away, it would be only a few years before it would be impossible to develop a new film or to manufacture one consistently. That is the case in every technological field.

Click to expand...

No offense, but as an observation, Ilford has not developed a single "new" emulsion in a decade for film products. They did bring back SFX though. Kodak and Fuji are the ONLY manufacturers that actually engineer and bring to market brand new film products. Ilford has developed a few new paper products, though.

mabman said:

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...

I am one of those youngsters that were attracted to film just because I was curious, now I think why I didn't shoot film before. For the quality and look, just as simple.

For the general snapshooter film is out, except those few old people that still have the good old machine working, last monday we visited family friends they're both in the 60s, and he shown me his good Agfa Optima.
There's much of "Film is history, film is dead, film will die soon around" I don't think that 35mm will sink that fast, I remember reading a 2004 thread about this and they thought that by 06, film would be out; It hasn't happened.

Film is Dying! That's a fact!

How Long? I donno!!
All depends on supply and demand!
We keep wanting! Film suppliers keep producing!

Professionally Today the Film can not match the quality and versatility of the Digital Image, (regardless of what all those Old fuddy duddy's still try and make you believe!)
So it's down the Hobby Photographer and the odd eccentric to keep film alive.

It would be a shame to see film die out, but that's evolution!
Who knows, the way the tech-world is evolving, there may be a similar forum for Digital in 40 years time!!!

RMP-NikonPro said:

Professionally Today the Film can not match the quality and versatility of the Digital Image, (regardless of what all those Old fuddy duddy's still try and make you believe!)
So it's down the Hobby Photographer and the odd eccentric to keep film alive.

Click to expand...

Guess which kind of film user has the greatest numbers?
When it comes to film, "pros" are completely irrelevant.

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...

you can say that again!

RMP-NikonPro said:

Professionally Today the Film can not match the quality and versatility of the Digital Image

Click to expand...

You're right; film is better. Check out this comparison of images shot with a 1956 Kodak Retina IIIc 35mm film camera (yes, 52 years old) and a 2008 Nikon D3: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/why-we-love-film.htm#

Hmmm I'll sell my D3!! and buy loads of Velvia 50!


P.s I like Ken too

For the 1956 Kodak Retina?

I'll keep my F100 thanks ;-P

RMP-NikonPro said:

Film is Dying! That's a fact!

How Long? I donno!!
All depends on supply and demand!
We keep wanting! Film suppliers keep producing!

Professionally Today the Film can not match the quality and versatility of the Digital Image, (regardless of what all those Old fuddy duddy's still try and make you believe!)
So it's down the Hobby Photographer and the odd eccentric to keep film alive.

It would be a shame to see film die out, but that's evolution!
Who knows, the way the tech-world is evolving, there may be a similar forum for Digital in 40 years time!!!

Click to expand...

I think, in one form or another, film is here to stay, it was predicted in the early part of the 20th century that photography would replace drawing and painting, yet I can still walk into an art supply store and buy canvas and paint. I think that film photography will go the same way, in fact I expect that 20 years from now, I may be buying film, chemicals and paper from the same art supply store.

I think that digital photography will become the forgotten medium. Many early photographs you now find in museums were taken, and years later when the photographer died, someone found boxes of old prints and negatives, of events that may have been ordinary at the time, but are now important. For example lots of photos of old buildings become important when the buildings are gone.

Digital imaging will become the forgotten time many ordinary and unimportant images are burned to CDR, yet 40 years from now if someone finds those shiny discs, will anyone remember what they are, and how to read them. Even if they say what they are on the label, will anyone know how to read them. First you need the right hardware to get the bits off the disc, then you need an operating system that can read that kind of disc, and then there is the file format. If you want proof of how difficult this could be, try reading a 5¼" diskette from a Northstar Horizon on a modern computer. I expect when I am gone, nobody will actively maintain my collection of image discs. The 4 volumes of negative pages will stay in their books, probably in a box in some relatives basement, until someone goes and looks at them, 75 years from now, and finds stuff in there, that has become important in that 75 years.

I expect that the route to digital image permanence is actually be the film recorder, a machine that will write those digital images onto a piece of ordinary B&W film, to be preserved for a century or two. It's something I would like to look into.

Does it surprise anyone that we STILL have to argue about which is better, digital or film? Get a life. There isn't an argument.

Y'know, I may be a bit balmy (In fact, my daughters as teenagers used to say Da-a-a -ad -- You are so-o-o WEIRD!!) but in my abjectly humble opinion the whole argument about "which is better" is just plain idiocy. Did you hear that correctly? Idiocy. Or is it Lunacy? So much for humility.

Digital and film are not the same thing. They can't be the same thing. It's like comparing halibut and chicken. They both taste good, it depends on how they are fixed. One's a fish and one's a bird. Prepared by a good chef, both can be divine. Prepared by a klutz in the kitchen, they could both make you sick.

I have no intention of giving up my Pana-Leicas, nor my several film Leicas. They are FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. For what they do, both are stupendous!

Rembrandt made etchings. Ever seen one? They are great. People still make etchings. That didn't change when the dominant technology went in a different direction. I've paid a fair amount of money for a couple of terrific etchings. People who can afford it might actually buy a Rembrandt etching, or maybe a Picasso. Wish I could. Maybe someday.

When expediency sent the world into offset printing, web presses, etc., they didn't print books with engravings any more. Engraving should be dead, don't you think? But, do you know what they print with engravings? The money in your wallet. If you have any, that is. I try to get some now and then. And security certificates. I sometimes try to get those, too. Stuff with extraordinary value. That's how obsolete intaglio became when it became inefficient. Those inefficient and obsolete techniques GAINED VASTLY IN VALUE as everything else became cheaper.

It is going to become more expensive to ply our craft. That is absolutely certain. Have you priced copper plates, etching presses, inks? They are expensive, and our medium uses precious metals. Of course it is going to be expensive, just like other once commonplace media. For someone who has watched the crap that used to go through both professional and amateur labs, in a way, I'm glad to see it. I hated to see this fantastic medium wasted on so much trash. You wouldn't believe it, if you weren't a color printer at Jet or at one of the professional equivalents. I used to collect the stuff (it wasn't illegal then) and people brought me examples from all over the lab. Fortunately, it's just about all gone now.

That's gone. That has all gone digital. Now, it takes skill and what experience brings. WE'RE FINALLY RID OF IT!!! LUCKY US!

The value of what we do can only increase! Frankly, I don't care how hard film is to get. I'm looking forward to it. Why? Because I know what I can make of it. If I can hang on into my eighties, or maybe even not that long, it will do nothing that is not to my benefit.

Yes, 35mm film may be hard to get. Fortunately, I know how to use big cameras too. I may have to hire some porters to carry them. I may have to hire a pair of young eyes to focus on the ground glass.

We used to wonder what we would do if film wasn't available. Would we make our own film, or would we work in another medium, or just give up? For me, I could do any of the above but would have a hard time giving up. One option would be to draw on animal skins with burnt sticks.

If you really want to do it, you are going to find a way.

wogster said:

I expect that the route to digital image permanence is actually be the film recorder, a machine that will write those digital images onto a piece of ordinary B&W film, to be preserved for a century or two. It's something I would like to look into.

Click to expand...

Interesting, Wog. I still have one of those. I have to keep an old Mac alive, running OS 9, in order to use it.

bowzart said:

Does it surprise anyone that we STILL have to argue about which is better, digital or film? Get a life. There isn't an argument.

Y'know, I may be a bit balmy (In fact, my daughters as teenagers used to say Da-a-a -ad -- You are so-o-o WEIRD!!) but in my abjectly humble opinion the whole argument about "which is better" is just plain idiocy. Did you hear that correctly? Idiocy. Or is it Lunacy? So much for humility.

Digital and film are not the same thing. They can't be the same thing. It's like comparing halibut and chicken. They both taste good, it depends on how they are fixed. One's a fish and one's a bird. Prepared by a good chef, both can be divine. Prepared by a klutz in the kitchen, they could both make you sick.

I have no intention of giving up my Pana-Leicas, nor my several film Leicas. They are FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. For what they do, both are stupendous!

Click to expand...

Personally, I think of digital as the same as another film format, it's good for some things, but not for others. 35mm is good for some things, but not for others, same applies to 120, 4x5, 8x10, etc. Really this means that the answer to which is better digital or film is neither.

wogster said:

Really this means that the answer to which is better digital or film is neither.

Click to expand...

Another perfectly correct way to think of it. I probably draw a sharper distinction, but the fact is, for what I do with film I wouldn't dream of doing with digital. and vice-versa.

bowzart said:

for what I do with film I wouldn't dream of doing with digital. and vice-versa.

Click to expand...

Which begs the question, "Do you dream in digital or analog?"

donbga said:

Which begs the question, "Do you dream in digital or analog?"

Click to expand...

Everything at its heart is analog.

JBrunner said:

Everything at its heart is analog.

Click to expand...

I tend to dream in analog. I don't do much in digital; it is not my native mode. And while I often dream analog, I rarely dream On a log. BOOO!

When I do dream in digital, it is most certainly a NIGHTMARE...one of those ones where the Canon, IBM, Adobe, Microsoft, and Epson execs are invading your home, stealing your belongings, forcing your spouse to sign over the house and bank accounts to them, and to sign divorce papers and give up custody of the kids, and you try with all your might to get up from in front of the computer to stop them, but can't because your weeks of personal filth have stuck you to the chair like epoxy, and you are blind anyhow, so wouldn't be able to do anything if you *did* manage to get up!!! You all know which one I'm talking about, right?