FUTURE OF 120 FILM

[Jan_5456]

Before abandoning the “digital path” completely
and spending my life savings on top quality 6x9
camera system, ... I have some serious anxiety
about the future of 120 film availability and
processing ... worldwide.

As an example ...
I love Agfa SCALA 200, but its availability is VERY
limited (and so are the labs processing this film).
... when will AgfaPhoto pull plug on this one ?

I am sure that most readers of this site have same (or similar)
concerns as I do ... What is the future of 120 film, really?

Will our precious cameras and lenses collect dust
somewhere in the attic soon? Or will we be forced to send our
films for development into one single lab ... with uncertain
future (i.e. when that lab will “pull-the-plug” on us all ?).

I want to invite comments of all on this topic (, but especially
of those involved with film marketing, processing, research
and development and/or professional photographers).

Thank you for your thought!

Jan

[Edward (Halifax,NS)]

Jan if you choose wisely you can mount a 22 Mp back to your 6X9 camera. Now they are obscenely expensive but by the time "the plug is pulled" on 120 film they should be reasonably priced and might not even need to be chained to a laptop.

[Laura Lea Nalle]

When photography was invented someone said, 'from this day on, painting is dead.' Another argued, 'no, from this day forward, painting will be liberated.' Painters were no longer burdened with reproducing life like portraits because photographers could do that now. Painting moved in a whole new direction as a result, and I think digital photography will have a similar affect on fine art and wet photography. I know plenty of professional photographers who do certain type of work in digital because it's more economical, faster turnaround time, and they don't need huge prints, but they still shoot all the 'important' work on 6x6 or larger. I don't foresee wet photography going anywhere anytime soon. First, digital has not caught up (anyone here willing to trade in their LF camera yet?) and second, there are plenty of purists out there, including myself, that are not willing to give up the quality and feeling of film. As long as there is a market for film, they will make it. Not many people in a capitalist society will stop making something that people want to buy unless their business is just unsustainable. Photographers are the consumers of film from a business perscpective, so, in a sense, it's up to the photographers to keep film alive and well.

[Dan Fromm]

Have you tried sending b/w film to dr5 for reversal processing? They do most emulsions. Do a search for dr5 and "film processing".

Also, IIRC Kodak sells a reversal kit for TMX.

There just may be life after Scala.

Cheers,

Dan

[Gene Crumpler]

Yes there is life after film. I can hang a back on my hasselblad and go digital to the max. Right now that option costs 29 grand!

I expect film will be with us for a while and B&W is likely to be with us for a very long time. Some of us like the craft of B&W and there should be enough demand for it a long time.

[Scott Fleming]

Some of us OGs who have the time should volunteer our services to introduce kids to our ancient craft. All would benefit.

[martin_4668]

Hi jan

I work in a pro camerashop in scandinavia, a lot of pros has gone digital, but som still use 120. On the amateur market the sales are rising !! I have no wories about 120. 35mm on the other hand.....I have only a few pros using 35mm, and almost all of the consumermarket has gone digital. Leica is the only 35mm camera manufacturer that sells (and not very good at this point !) Contax is out, Canon europe sold less than 10 EOS 1V last year..!!! The Nikon F6 was a surprise, and is actually selling, but only to conniseurs, not to photographers.

i would say, 120 is hot, 35 is not.

[Andre Noble]

"Canon europe sold less than 10 EOS 1V last year"

I find that hard to believe, but incredible if true.

[Conrad Hoffman]

I don't have any inside knowledge, but do know a thing or two about manufacturing. As long as film is made, it will be no big deal to cut it up into sheets. IMO, sheet film will be around longer than we will. Roll film, OTOH, requires spools, special paper backing, tape, and more labor to put it together. The special paper backing will be less and less available as demand declines. IMO, a small demand for roll film will not be sufficient for anyone to keep making it. 35mm is easier, and the user base was far larger, so it will probably continue longer just through inertia and the people who can't/won't go digital.

[Joe_5422]

Well, at the rate I am consuming 120 film, the manufacturers (especially Fuji) will be making money for a long time LOL

I have a mixed bag...shooting 120, then scanning it, like many others. Half analog, half digital. Beautiful prints.

It will be a long time, IMHO, that the digital back to match the equivalent 100 Mpx scans becomes available (at a reasonable price).

120 has a pretty good life still, me thinks.

[george jiri loun]

Jan, if there is a film that has bright future it's just the 120 format! This format has better quality pictures than 36mm (eventually replaced by the digital for a majority of amateurs, not all) and it's this at this format where it is cheaper to keep the film rather than the digital with this high quality and this ease of use. Don't look at the digital, go for your "top quality 6x9" (an Arca Swiss I hope for you...)!

[Chad Jarvis]

" 'Not many people in a capitalist society will stop making something that people want to buy unless their business is just unsustainable.'

Somehow I don't think the Yellow Perils has this as one of their business maxims."

Come now, Dan. I read your comment as saying that Kodak has consciously decided to stop selling (some) film(s) despite having enough customers to sustain business. Hell, maybe that's why they're losing money; they're trying to sell digital to people who want to buy film!

Maybe there's hope after all.

[Lars Åke Vinberg]

I keep hearing of pros returning to film after investing heavily in digital. Apparently digital workflows are not up to speed, and clients assume that with digital the work is finished when the shutter closes so it is difficult to charge for all those late hours by the computer. With film, the lab does all the work, and the cost can be passed on to the client with no argument.

[Wayne Crider]

My motto is, buy more film and shoot it.

Now, more importantly, let's talk about this minature format you want to shoot...hehehe

[Donald Qualls]

Sad to say, I expect to outlive 120 film.

Fortunately, I have a couple well-working plate cameras, and if necessary I can reproduce Daguerrerotypy or gelatin dry plates using those cameras. Cyanotypes date from the 1830s (before even paper negative silver photography), and salted paper can be done in a bathroom with chemicals I can (if necessary) reproduce from stuff I can buy at a home improvement store and a jeweler's findings outlet. Glass isn't going to vanish any time soon.

[Philippe Gauthier]

Apparently SCALA is due to be discontinued in 2006. I hope Agfa changes its mind because it really is an unique and beautiful film, but I expect very little from this company nowadays... If only someone would buy the rights to the emulsion and continue production!

[Dan Fromm]

Phillipe, Jan, take a look at http://www.dr5.com/main.html

I wasn't kidding when I wrote that there will be life after Scala.

Cheers,

Dan

[Claude Eichel]

Hello all,
there are alternatives to Scala, I like B&W transparencies and I do it myself with a few films with nice results.
see this post :
http://largeformatphotography.info/lfforum/topic/500418.html

Regards
Claude

[Dphotography]

I was notified by the professional lab I have been using for the past 15 years they will no longer be processing c41 anymore as of July 2008.Makes me sad because I will have to finally put my Hasselblad in a box / museum.
Is there any lab in Montreal still willing to process 120 film.I have not gone digital yet so I had no choice but to refuse jobs this summer.Although this is a side line so it does not impact me too much.I was hoping when I purchased my Hasselblad 20 years ago I would still have the joyment of using the blad well into my retirement days.I hate technology.
Hope someone can give insight to the future of 120 film.

[Ted Harris]

I was notified by the professional lab I have been using for the past 15 years they will no longer be processing c41 anymore as of July 2008.Makes me sad because I will have to finally put my Hasselblad in a box / museum.


Why does that mean you have to put your 'blad in a museum? You can switch to E6 film. You can send your film via mail to another lab if there isn't one in Montreal (but I'll bet there is).

[Dick Hilker]

With Fuji's planned introduction of another 120 camera, it seems they must believe there's a future for them in that format

[Rob_5419]

I quite like the idea of newbies (welcome!) ressurrecting 3 year old threads.

I wonder what/where all the original posters are now.

Here's what happened in the past three years.

A digital back on a Hasselblad which cost $29,000 3 years ago, now costs little under $10,000 and runs at 16MP without the noise problems of tiny full frame sensors. 120 roll film is still here, and we've had a new Velvia re-release, Fuji 400X emulsion too. Agfa Scala still refuses to die and is going strong in France with Arka Laboratoire using Agfa's patented process - and Germans flogging off every remnant of Agfa emulsion ever made under various names. Adox has release CMS 20, ATP ultra-fine grain emulsion in 35mm or 120 roll film. There is still a good selection of different film emulsions, and even developments, when you look at the improved Maco emulsions marketed under Rollei with improvements in grain and emulsion structure such as the Rollei Infrared 400 films. Ilford are definitely still here and smaller companies like Kentmere, since bought out, will be re-releasing Art Classic papers.

The real surprise is in smaller 35mm format, Leica, everyone's favourite handbag maker, is still here despite having several scares and Voigtlander continue to churn out lenses. Polaroid, the company who has refused to die, has had an emulsion lift of its own.

Anyhow....I just thought I'd say that, just in case someone decides to ressurect this thread 3 years from now ;)

[Bob Salomon]

" and Voigtlander continue to churn out lenses."

No, you mean Cosina makes cameras and lenses with lots of different names. Voigtlander is one of them.

But the German manufacturer that was lastly part of Rollei before their bankruptcy is long gone. Their factory was lastly used by a division of Zeiss to make projectors, including the Hasselblad projector. But that was also in the past.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Also, specific to C-41 and medium format, Kodak has come out with updated versions of the Portra films utilizing 2-electron sensitization, yielding half the grain at the same speed.

[Gordon Moat]

To be fair, I think lab resources can be hinder some film uses. My preferred lab for most of my work does not do C-41 for 4x5 films, though they can send it out for me. While that doesn't make too much difference to me, since I am mostly an E-6 film shooter, it does mean I have no interest in trying C-41 emulsions in 4x5 films.

The Kodak reps once handed me some Portra 800 to try against my pushed E200 (120 rollfilms). While they felt it would be a good alternative, what I found was I still liked the E200 results better. Shame they don't make E200 in Readyloads. Of course, now I have Fujifilm 400X as an alternative too.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[CG]

I was notified by the professional lab I have been using for the past 15 years they will no longer be processing c41 anymore as of July 2008.Makes me sad because I will have to finally put my Hasselblad in a box / museum.

I've lost, ummm, three E6 labs in the last couple of years. Now I mail film to a lab in Massachusetts.

There's got to be C41 and E6 in your city or within reasonable mailing distance. Keep looking.

C

[David Luttmann]

Also, specific to C-41 and medium format, Kodak has come out with updated versions of the Portra films utilizing 2-electron sensitization, yielding half the grain at the same speed.

Unfortunately for Kodak, reducing the grain in half allows them to only equal what Fuji had already done with their Pro 160 series.....grain RMS of 3.

[Ted Harris]

CG, don't know where you are in New Hampshire nd a lab in MA may be closer to you but have you tried Slide Specialists in Lebanon? Any size you shoot they process.

[JPlomley]

DP, please don't tell me it was Dafoe!

[JPlomley]

O.K., I can breathe a sigh of relief. Just called Dafoe and they are continuing to process C41. They are located in the Old City near Rue Notre Dame. I've been using them for 7 years now for E6 and C41 and their quality is top drawer. Give them a call at 514-286-9151. Their turnaround times are next day.

[JPlomley]

No, you mean Cosina makes cameras and lenses with lots of different names. Voigtlander is one of them.

As are the Zeiss ZM lenses. By all accounts the Leica equivalent at 1/3rd the cost. Since the introduction of the M8, the ZM lenses are flying off the shelves. Apparently the Zeiss Ikon is also doing exceptionally well. A lot of people trading their M6's and getting the ZI instead of the M7. I think film is alive and doing very well.

[Asher Kelman]

As are the Zeiss ZM lenses. By all accounts the Leica equivalent at 1/3rd the cost. Since the introduction of the M8, the ZM lenses are flying off the shelves. Apparently the Zeiss Ikon is also doing exceptionally well. A lot of people trading their M6's and getting the ZI instead of the M7. I think film is alive and doing very well.

Hi JPlomley,

How loud is the Z1 compared to the M7. Also how about accuracy of the rangefinders?

Asher

[David Luttmann]

Hi JPlomley,

How loud is the Z1 compared to the M7. Also how about accuracy of the rangefinders?

Asher

I think the Ikon has the best viewfinder I've ever seen....better than the M7. But then again, I like my R2A better than the M7 finder.

[mawz]

Hi JPlomley,

How loud is the Z1 compared to the M7. Also how about accuracy of the rangefinders?

Asher

The Ikon is louder than an M7 as it uses a vertical-travel metal shutter, similar volume as a M8 actually, RF baseline is shorter as well, so less accurate with very fast lenses, stick to the M's for noctiluxes and 90 'Crons. But it's also 1/3 of the price, has a better meter readout and better film loading.

Note that not all ZM lenses are made by Cosina. At least two of them are still made by Zeiss in germany. The 15mm Distagon and 85mm Sonnar use floating elements and are therefore made in Germany, the rest are made by Cosina then QC'd by Zeiss in Japan (Zeiss shipped a full set of QC gear to Cosina's factory a couple years ago).

[Gene McCluney]

The Ikon is louder than an M7 as it uses a vertical-travel metal shutter, similar volume as a M8 actually, RF baseline is shorter as well, so less accurate with very fast lenses, stick to the M's for noctiluxes and 90 'Crons. But it's also 1/3 of the price, has a better meter readout and better film loading.



I thought the baseline of the rf on the ZI was about the same as the M6. I know the rf baseline on the Voigtlander cameras is considerably shorter..but please don't confuse the ZI and the Voigtlanders, they really are separate designs.

[panchro-press]

Does the lab have to be in Montreal? It's hard to believe there are no Canadian labs doing C41. Of course, the prints may be in English, but that better than putting your 'blad on a shelf, isn't it?

[domenico Foschi]

When photography was invented someone said, 'from this day on, painting is dead.' Another argued, 'no, from this day forward, painting will be liberated.' Painters were no longer burdened with reproducing life like portraits because photographers could do that now. Painting moved in a whole new direction as a result, and I think digital photography will have a similar affect on fine art and wet photography. I know plenty of professional photographers who do certain type of work in digital because it's more economical, faster turnaround time, and they don't need huge prints, but they still shoot all the 'important' work on 6x6 or larger. I don't foresee wet photography going anywhere anytime soon. First, digital has not caught up (anyone here willing to trade in their LF camera yet?) and second, there are plenty of purists out there, including myself, that are not willing to give up the quality and feeling of film. As long as there is a market for film, they will make it. Not many people in a capitalist society will stop making something that people want to buy unless their business is just unsustainable. Photographers are the consumers of film from a business perscpective, so, in a sense, it's up to the photographers to keep film alive and well.

I like your thinking and I agree with you,..

[mawz]

I thought the baseline of the rf on the ZI was about the same as the M6. I know the rf baseline on the Voigtlander cameras is considerably shorter..but please don't confuse the ZI and the Voigtlanders, they really are separate designs.

Looked it up and I stand corrected, the ZI is actually longer at ~55mm effective than the standard .72x Leica finder's ~49mm. While I know there are differences between the ZI and the Voightlanders, they are very closely related cameras.

[Rob_5419]

Looked it up and I stand corrected, the ZI is actually longer at ~55mm effective than the standard .72x Leica finder's ~49mm. While I know there are differences between the ZI and the Voightlanders, they are very closely related cameras.


Indeed .....they are both rangefinders.

I tried out the ZI and settled on a Leica M6. The ZI has a better viewfinder and a superior rangefinder base for standard focal lengths. You can get around this on a Leica by opting for the 0.85x M6 version but it then eats into the wide-angle. The ZI doesn't have such issues.

Nice to see this thread homing in on 'obsolete' formats like 35mm and not the vibrant 120mm format. Digital is dead! :D

[Jim MacKenzie]

I live in Regina, Saskatchewan, and we still have a C41/E6 120 lab (Don's Photo), for the record.

[JPlomley]

My only concern with the ZI was build quality and potential resale value. There have been reports on the Rangefinder Forum of the ZI shipping with the rangefinder out of alignment and not standing up to the abuse that the Leica's can take. For me personally, I gravitate towards the 35mm lens for street work and as an eyeglass wearer, prefer a 0.58 VF. A further advantage of the 0.58 VF on the Leica M is that only the 35mm frame lines are present when a 35mm lens is mounted. This makes for an uncluttered VF akin to my Mamiya 7 with 65mm lens. Reportedly, the M7 has the quietist shutter of all Leica's. But it is no where near as silent as the leaf shutter in my Mamiya 7.

[Dphotography]

No it is not Dafoe.

[venchka]

...For me personally, I gravitate towards the 35mm lens for street work and as an eyeglass wearer, prefer a 0.58 VF. A further advantage of the 0.58 VF on the Leica M is that only the 35mm frame lines are present when a 35mm lens is mounted.

The Hexar RF has a 0.60 viewfinder. Sad to say that what is probably the best rangefinder body ever made has Zero repair support.

[lenser]

I don't know how you feel about sending film to the states and what crossing the borders might entail for commerce, but I've been delighted with Allied Photocolor in St,. Louis. Incredible range of services from all film processes through digital services and they are quite reasonable. Check them out at www.alliedphotocolor.com.

Good luck.

Tim

[mdd99]

In a recent PDN (travel issue), there was an article about a guy who travels around the world shooting for Travel and Leisure (and others). He hauls around 2 Pentax 67s, plus an RZ. He says the airport security people just love him when he shows up with 140 rolls of 120. Mike

[mawz]

Indeed .....they are both rangefinders.


Far more than that, they share a basic shutter & film transport design, as well as the basic RF arrangement, film loading arrangement, metering and other minor aspects. The ZI is a collaboration between Zeiss and Cosina, to make a top-drawer RF drawing from the experience Cosina had from the Bessa's and Ziess's optical expertise. The ZI is a definite step up from the Bessa's in quality, but the two lines are definitely related far more closely than just being rangefinders.

[Rob_5419]

Not to be outdone in the everlasting rangefinder squabblying tendencies of the 35mm communities to split hairs over atomic differences which import something I've yet to grasp, a step up to 120mm will bring us back to topic and remind us that 35mm rangefinders are essentially tiny 35mm rangefinders.

It's nice to have one to shoot with. Which one doesn't really matter for the least pernickety of us ;)

[venchka]

Amen!

I have enough 120/220 film stashed in my fridge to keep my Pentax 6x7 fed beyond the ability of the stashed film to render a decent image.

[Bob Salomon]

Not to be outdone in the everlasting rangefinder squabblying tendencies of the 35mm communities to split hairs over atomic differences which import something I've yet to grasp, a step up to 120mm will bring us back to topic and remind us that 35mm rangefinders are essentially tiny 35mm rangefinders.

It's nice to have one to shoot with. Which one doesn't really matter for the least pernickety of us ;)

120mm is 4x5. 70mm is/was medium format. So 120mm is a big step up from 35mm.

[CG]

OK - got it right now....


CG, don't know where you are in New Hampshire nd a lab in MA may be closer to you but have you tried Slide Specialists in Lebanon? Any size you shoot they process.

Hi there,

Thanks for the suggestion. At one point I obtained a web address from them, and the site now seems dead. I assumed - incorrectly - they had gone away like many other labs.

I'm very grateful you have told me they are still around. I will use them. I'm close enough to drive there when time is short. I'm at exit 8 / 9 off 89, so they're, ummm, a 30 or 40 minute drive away.

Thanks!

C

[mrthieme]

Hello, first post here. Buying a dslr was the act that really sparked my interest in photography, it is motivating me to finally learn wet darkroom work, and I can't be the only one. Being a hobbyist, I am constantly looking to figure out the best image quality for my limited budget. I use a Canon 30d and 13" Epson printer, the next step up in print size and going to a full frame body will be thousands of dollars, and is just not feasible. For far less money I could assemble a simple darkroom and basic medium or large format system, and learn a few things in the process. The moral here was that digital has led me to film, maybe if it happens enough the future of film will stretch out even further into this century.

[Pavel+]

I wonder in five years .... if the price of a roll of 120 is at $14 dollars a roll (as an extreme example) how many would hold out.
I like film and have gone back to it after a digital absence of more than six years ... but I do have to say that I think the future is worrysome. The economics of scale are just starting to kick in and it could be a bad spiral of less user base leading to less selection and higher prices leading back to less users etc ... round and round.

In being a fan of film I kind of tended to minimize the possibilities that this is likely to happen but the recent going out of business of polaroid kind of drove the times home to me. We are completely dependent on film being a profitable venture - in the face of much evidence with signs of the opposite being true.

Lets remember that ten years ago - none of what has happened to the film market could even have been imagined, that it should happen in such a short time. Ten years from now? I wonder. I hope for good things ... but like ox carts ... film may become a small marginal thing. Despite how much some folks love ox carts and film both.

[bglick]

> As long as there is a market for film, they will make it.

my response refers mostly to color film, not B&W


There was a time in history where statements like this were somewhat true. However, with the two big film makers being multi-billion dollar, public corporations, I don't feel comfortable with this adage. If film sales represented a big % of total sales, I would still feel more comfortable with this statement, but that is not the case. Photo film sales probably represent <5% of total sales from the big 2. That is a bad sign IMO. I think cinema film may be our Saviour, but that is migrating to digital also.


I think under a worst case scenario, we will loose the big 2, but will still have film choices from small Chinese companies, such as Lucky film. We can only hope Kodak does not close out their film line, but instead, turns it over to Lucky film, which Kodak has a 25% interest in. We can only hope Fuji does the same. The problem is, these companies are so big, they can no longer do anything on a small scale and make it profitable.


The other big factor here is ..... Sony's new 25MP full frame chip which will soon be released and offered in several brands of cameras. At 25MP, these cameras are strong competitors in the MF market. As the price falls on these chips, we will see more people migrating to digital who used to buy 120 film. I fear these low cost 25MP chips (vs. Phase One, Leaf, etc.) might be the final nail in the film coffin... at least how the film is made and sold today.... of course, this won't happen overnight, but its remarkable how fast these high tech products move into the market and displace other technologies (120 film).


OTOH, it seems Fuji has some commitment to the Japanese market of film users. Maybe the loyalist mindset of the heads of Fuji will keep film alive longer than expected. Its a crap shoot for sure!

[Kuzano]

I wonder in five years .... if the price of a roll of 120 is at $14 dollars a roll (as an extreme example) how many would hold out.


My response to your question... never impose a price tag on either avocation or vocation. A hobbyist will not sneeze twice at that price tag, and a professional will do what a professional has to do.

Frankly, I think film is dirt cheap in terms of what I pay to have fun. I know golfers who are going out and spending $60 bucks greens fees (no return) for a couple of hours of sheer frustration (as it would be in my case).

I have a friend who races a hot rod pickup that he built himself (450 HP chevy) at an 1/8th mile drag strip. 3-4 runs cost him as much as your hypothetical roll of 120 film. Since he's never brought home a trophy... nothing to show for it. A weekend of trailering his pickup to the track sets him back a couple of hundred dollars.

I do photography because it's the least expensive hobby I have found, even in terms of equipment costs, that gives me something to remember.... images.

Will $20 rolls of 120 stop me... not likely. Will I go digital instead.... only if it gets a helll of a lot better than it is, and less work with less change in technology in any given period of time. Been there, done that.

I am tired of the 90&#37; solutions that are aimed at just siphoning more of my money off for the next generation of digital. Plus every new version of software has a new, and possibly steeper learning curve. Microsofts blunder into Vista is a prime example... just in Operating System alone.

It's never going to stop and let us off to enjoy the tools we have unless we quit looking at the new and wonderful..... everything.

[rguinter]

In a recent PDN (travel issue), there was an article about a guy who travels around the world shooting for Travel and Leisure (and others). He hauls around 2 Pentax 67s, plus an RZ. He says the airport security people just love him when he shows up with 140 rolls of 120. Mike
------------------
They love my Fugi G617 also. They always keep it under the scanner for many seconds (admiring it I guess). Then they take me aside, make me open the Tamrac pack, pull it out and open it up so they can swab the inside. I learned a long time ago to never put film in the pack with it. Bob

[rguinter]

...I am tired of the 90% solutions that are aimed at just siphoning more of my money off for the next generation of digital. Plus every new version of software has a new, and possibly steeper learning curve. Microsofts blunder into Vista is a prime example... just in Operating System alone.

It's never going to stop and let us off to enjoy the tools we have unless we quit looking at the new and wonderful..... everything.
---------------------------
Yes the new and wonderful is always top cost as well as top shelf. But like a new car the $$$ depreciation is steep. I like the fact that my G617 and Widelux 1500 are today selling on auction sites for more than I paid for them 15-years ago. I'm wondering what their digital equivalents (if there are any yet) will be worth when they are as old.

So I keep the fridge filled with 120/220 and enjoy the tools I have. Bob

[ghost]

Well- here we go, good timing resurrecting this thread...

...about once every year is a nice check-in...

Feb 2008-Mar 2009...

-At least one improved B&W emulsion this year (TMY2)- any major losses?

Seems film is just fine- gotta love the commitment from Ilford and Efke.

Where's all the "film is dead" folks in 2009? still around? I bet your camera from 2008 is outdated and needs upgraded, eh? :p

[Gordon Moat]

Kodak Ektar 100 is also now available in 120 rollfilm size. This is a colour negative film processed C-41. While I prefer E-6 films, I might try a roll or two.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[John Bowen]

This thread is SOOOOO old that 120 film has outlasted most of the posters on the 1st page of this thread.....

A very high % of the early posters on this thread haven't posted here since 2006!

[mikebarger]

Interesting John.

Looks like Dan is the only person on page one that has posted since 2006.

Mike

[Michael Cienfuegos]

My response to your question... never impose a price tag on either avocation or vocation. A hobbyist will not sneeze twice at that price tag, and a professional will do what a professional has to do.

Frankly, I think film is dirt cheap in terms of what I pay to have fun. I know golfers who are going out and spending $60 bucks greens fees (no return) for a couple of hours of sheer frustration (as it would be in my case).

I have a friend who races a hot rod pickup that he built himself (450 HP chevy) at an 1/8th mile drag strip. 3-4 runs cost him as much as your hypothetical roll of 120 film. Since he's never brought home a trophy... nothing to show for it. A weekend of trailering his pickup to the track sets him back a couple of hundred dollars.

I do photography because it's the least expensive hobby I have found, even in terms of equipment costs, that gives me something to remember.... images.

Will $20 rolls of 120 stop me... not likely. Will I go digital instead.... only if it gets a helll of a lot better than it is, and less work with less change in technology in any given period of time. Been there, done that.

I am tired of the 90% solutions that are aimed at just siphoning more of my money off for the next generation of digital. Plus every new version of software has a new, and possibly steeper learning curve. Microsofts blunder into Vista is a prime example... just in Operating System alone.

It's never going to stop and let us off to enjoy the tools we have unless we quit looking at the new and wonderful..... everything.

I think that you have hit the nail on the head. I bought a TOPCON RE-Super when deployed with the Navy in 1968. I used it quite a bit until for whatever reason I lost interest in the late 1970's. When my girlfriend decided that she wanted a digital camera and bought a Nikon D200 a few years ago, I dug out my old camera, along with other old relics I had acquired along the way (I'm a packrat by nature) and started using them again. I also bought a Nikon D80 digital camera to take advantage of her wonderful lenses, but then bought a Nikon N80 so that I could shoot film using those same lenses. I now have a Toyo 45G view camera, a few Graflex SLR's (in working condition) and am looking for a Speed Graphic. I also have a few Mamiya TLR's which I use regularly. I have had no problem with my old relics, Had tthe TOPCON CLA's last year, it gives me few problems. How many of these new digital cameras will be chugging along with no problems after forty years? I buy the new films for these old cameras (Cut it to fit the 3x4 Graflex's) and have loads of fun. I am semi-retired, am willing to spend that extra buck to enjoy my avocation. Photography is fun. Members of my camera club are surprised to find out that many of my submissions for competition are film based. The only thing I find Photoshop useful for is to resize my images so that I can submit them for competition. :)

Film Lives!, and so do those cameras which are thirty years older than I!:D

[Drew Wiley]

I'd have absolutely no worries investing in decent 120, 35mm, 4x5, or 8x10 film cameras right now. Any specific digital equipment you buy will probably either be
obsolete or require some kind of expensive upgrade long before these popular film sizes
expire. Agfa Scala was a niche product by a failing company, but there's already a
replacement for it. 120 film is abundant and generally cheap. Every Pro house has lots
of it, including color neg, color trans, and b&w. There are still plenty of pro photographers, especially in the wedding and portrait crowd, who prefer 120 film over
digital, although they often supplement this with a DLSR. Different results.

[Peter von Gaza]

Like others I've got a freezer full of 120 B&W film that will last me to the "end of days". I do think that 120 will be pressed hard in the next few years because of the affordability and quality of 20+MP digital cameras (e.g. 5dII and Alpha 900). My Mamiya 7 has been my workhorse for years. I traveled with a few hundred rolls of 120 for six months while traveling thru Pakistan and the Middle East (1999) and avoided every xray machine (even going thru Heathrow!!). I like bragging about that trip, but what an ultimate hassle! Probably not even possible to carry so much film in this world anymore.

However, I recently bought a Canon 5d Mark II for aerial photography and I have to say that prints I have produced at 16x20 have stunned me. To best the quality of the 5dII I will have to pay for drum scans of my 120. So I see my Mamiya 7 not being used much in the future. I will continue to use my 4x5 for my landscape work, which will be accompanied by the 5dII. I honestly think the days of my Mamiya 7 are probably done. It has been a good friend. Sigh...

I see medium format popularity declining in the next few years because of digital. Just look at what you can buy a Mamiya 7 for on Ebay! Cheap! As existing medium format users get some exposure to cameras like the 5dII more will switch or at least split their work between film and digital. The medium format film family will be hard pressed to maintain it's membership in the coming years. It seems that 120 film will only get more expensive to purchase and process.

I think medium format is now caught between worlds. It has a very small niche between affordable good digital and 4x5 and it is getting squeezed. It is only going to get worse.

Cheers, Peter

[Clement Apffel]

Jumping into this thread for a side note.

I red the photokina thread on APUG. And I'm sorry but I have to make something clear :

R&D on film is over.
Van Camper is stating:
"Also remember as digital gets better, so will film."

But imo, that is not true.
The R&D stopped a while ago actually.

If Kodak is still releasing new films today, it is indeed in order to boost film sales but in a final spurt of effort. But don’t get tricked by the excellent Kodak communication:
The R&D is over for a while now. And those films come from the drawer. The Kodak R&D always had a big advance on other competitors : Kodak always had 1 or 2 developed films in advance. They weren’t releasing them at the rhythm of their R&D because it would have been overkilling the competitors with tons of new emulsions a year. So the strategy (excellent strategy) was to keep the new emulsions in the drawer waiting the next generation of film released by competitors. When that happened, they released the next one on the top of the drawer.

That is why only Kodak is releasing film these days. All the film R&D in all the big firms producing film stopped quite at the same time. But Kodak got some films in the drawer: they are slowly releasing them time to time, to boost film sales.
But those films were conceived long ago.

I have this piece of info from a French expert who spent his life working on film testing and ISO norms, he knows quite well the Rochester firm. To me it is reliable but one could always call this fact into question as no one would ever have any real information from Kodak. Of course: it’s marketing.

I am the very first one hoping film will be available during all my life time. I shoot 4x5 and plan to upgrade to 8x10 in the coming years when I’ll have the money to afford it.
That said, I am way less optimistic than most of you here on the future of film availability.

And actually, (but that would only be my little secret bet) I always suspected the optimistic claiming film will be available long time to do self-persuasion in order to sooth their own fears. ;)

Come what may ! But as many of you, I have a freezer stock !

Oh, and I would like to know where you have seen that wedding and portrait photographer are using film. All the photographers I know are shooting digital. DSLRs and nothing in the entire word would ever turn them back to film. For those who were doing fine-art portrait and stuff, they just photoshop it. And they have just the same exact quality and render they had before on those little 8x10-prints-blurred-filtered-portrait-of-the-little-son-for-the-grandma.

just my 2 cents.

[emo supremo]

"Painting is dead" analogy is an oversimplification. In physics the maxim is "Simplify, simplify.....but don't simplify too much." This analogy is predicated on the assumption that the starting materials and equipment of painting (can be made by hand from scratch by a person who can't read) and photography (ditto) are on the same level playing field. This analogy wobbles and tumbles when film and digital are inserted into that maxim. The general population is not as intelligent as the good old days. (nb: quite a bit of chuckling going on on this end on last statement). BTW call me crazy but I just invested heavily (>$4K) into your LF hobby.

[Ash]

I just bought a Hasselblad 500C.

I can't afford a digital back for it. I can't afford a 5DII, I can't afford a 1Ds.

I can afford to buy bricks of fresh 120 online and get it processed by myself or a lab.

I plan on buying film for the next few years. At least, until there's a full frame 6x6 back that has enough battery power and portability that I can take it on a long trip.

Don't forget even digital costs money for memory cards - especially at the highest quality raw - on long trips you can't necessarily download all your images. You end up spending as much on an easily corrupted circuit-board as you would on easily fogged film ;)

[Bob Salomon]

Don't forget even digital costs money for memory cards -

Last week A NYC dealer was selling a five pack of 2GB San Disk cards for $49.00.

What are you paying for film?

[Ash]

Oh also R&D is still going ahead by Fuji. Even if the products are never released, we had a member of staff from the UK branch come into our uni (with freebies, oh yes) and confirm that. It was around the time Velvia was reintroduced.

[Sevo]

The R&D stopped a while ago actually.


Maybe. But so what? It would not even had any impact on the history of professional photography if all film R&D had stopped by the late sixties. Some things got significantly better past that time, like the resolution of ISO 400 and up film or CN latitude), but other things got worse - the swing towards cheap colour for the masses brought us a colour saturation driven beyond 100% and the abandonment of many archivable processes, like Kodachrome, Dye Transfer or Technicolor. None of these changes mark a turning point for anything beyond 35mm point-and-shoot - the core technology to make high quality pictures was already there by the end of the WWII/cold war R&D rush.

As far as large format is concerned, the results of film research post the mid 20th century are even more insignificant. The somewhat minor resolution gains at low sensitivity had no practical impact on large format, which already was lens rather than film resolution bound by the time Pan-X and Kodachrome appeared. And few people cheered the withdrawal of naturally coloured films for the sake of a wild variety of massively oversaturated ones. The one big post-sixties improvement which might have been useful in large format, low grain ultra-sensitive films, never made it into regular sheet film shelf products.

Sevo

[Marko]

Last week A NYC dealer was selling a five pack of 2GB San Disk cards for $49.00.

What are you paying for film?

One of these cards could store about 80-90 RAW files from a Canon 5DII. Which is the equivalent of 6 rolls of 120 in 645. $49 buys about 5 rolls of processed 120 (E6).

The very existence and frequency of threads like this answers their question.

[Brian Ellis]

"If film sales represented a big % of total sales, I would still feel more comfortable with this statement, but that is not the case. Photo film sales probably represent <5% of total sales from the big 2. That is a bad sign IMO. I think cinema film may be our Saviour, but that is migrating to digital also."

Don't know what film represents as a percentage of total sales, but remember that the fine art and landscape market is not small. There are billions of square feet of walls to cover with art in homes, cottages, offices, business.....they all need art (not magazine images shot with a digital back). Many are buying bigger prints these days (walk into any furniture store and look around), and even the best digital is still not suited for landscape or fine art....film rules when it comes to big prints. Pros are shooting primarily large format film for high end landscape art. I think this business is much bigger then most of us here believe.

Also remember as digital gets better, so will film. Film has advanced a lot in the last 10 years. Also 612 and 617 film formats have become quite popular..... and Fotoman, Goaersi, Chamonix, Ebony have introduced something in this format, even Linhof upgraded the Technorama. ALso Fuji for 2009 has introduced a 6x7 film folder camera.

Check out Hennings report on films growth at Photokina 2008. Film is the most affordable and still offers the highest quality (especially in larger formats).
http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/54564-photokina-positive-news-film.html

http://www.thiaps.com/editors/ ....Photokina Impressions

Interesting that this years Photokina was about half and half for digital and analog, or that large format sales are up 40% according to Kodak. Film is coming back, and as digital gets better, so does film (and you keep the same camera).

Here is a section of a 37 inch print (nikon 9000, 6x7 Provia)....very little grain (remove if wish with Neat Image, etc). That red barn is about 125-150 yards from me on the other side of this small bay at Peggys Cove. I still see detail in the grass. Imagine 617 film scanned with the 9000 (stitched)....yu can't touch this with digital. Also remember you're looking at this image on the monitor at under 100ppi....you should see the print!

If the future of film depends on the quality you get from a 37 inch print the future isn't very bright. : - )

I asked this the last time you talked about the 40% increase and didn't get a response so I'll try again. Could you provide a link or a cite to a source for that statement? I ask because I've never seen anything from Kodak that separated film sales out by size. And the statement is kind of meaningless without knowing the period covered by this supposed increase, i.e. from when to when did sales of LF film increase by this amount? Thanks.

[Wallace_Billingham]

FWIW, Kodak has been doing quite a bit of R&D on film stocks over the past few years. The goal has not been to create a lot of new films, but rather to be able to make high quality films in much smaller runs.

Some films they were able to do this with like Tri-X and as such Tri-X was tweaked a bit a little while back, and others like HIE sadly had to be dropped.

Kodak had always been tooled to make massive production runs of each of its films, now they have retooled to make much smaller runs but make them more often.

Wonder why they slightly tweaked Tri-X, and came out with a new T-Max, and a new Ektar 100? All of those new stocks can now be made in batches measuered in the thousands of rolls and sheets, instead of the millions

[Marko]

If the future of film depends on the quality you get from a 37 inch print the future isn't very bright. : - )

I asked this the last time you talked about the 40% increase and didn't get a response so I'll try again. Could you provide a link or a cite to a source for that statement? I ask because I've never seen anything from Kodak that separated film sales out by size. And the statement is kind of meaningless without knowing the period covered by this supposed increase, i.e. from when to when did sales of LF film increase by this amount? Thanks.

No, other than APUG, he can't. That's another fine example of drive-by posting - just spray a ton of nonsense around and something will eventually stick, or, more likely, everybody will run for cover and the discussion will be shot.

Notice that he didn't even specify how large that "section of a 35 inch print" was, much less other details. I would think there would be a big difference between 2"x2" and 10"x10" crop...

Never mind the 37-inch prints, the moment you have to start proving that film has great future - to anybody who would listen as well as to yourself - that future is already clear.

I really don't see the purpose of threads such as this. And I can see even less why this particular thread is not in The Lounge, as it is not about LF?

[Drew Wiley]

Wallace - if what you say is correct it's good news, because there will be less financial
risk to the mfg to keep a few specialty films around, plus film stocks will be fresher.
And as someone who routinely works with color films from both Kodak and Fuji, I'd have
to strongly disagree that things are static in R&D. Competition is strong and the products are in many ways better than ever. I do miss Kodachrome and a few of the
unsual color films from Agfa, but not a big issue for me, since I primarily shoot sheet film.

[Jim Noel]

The more we use it, the longer it will be around. If we worry about something going away, and stop using it because of the worry, it will disappear.

[Bob Salomon]

One of these cards could store about 80-90 RAW files from a Canon 5DII. Which is the equivalent of 6 rolls of 120 in 645. $49 buys about 5 rolls of processed 120 (E6).

The very existence and frequency of threads like this answers their question.

And after you transfer the files from the cards and erase them you have another 6 rolls and they can be erased and re-used many times.

We have as big or bigger interest in film staying since we are the distributors for Linhof, Wista and Rodenstock. But digital is a fact of life and it is here.

Have you checked what a well stocked dealers film shelves and refrigerators look like today and compared it to what was in them 10 years ago?

[redrockcoulee]

Bob et al

I think that both this discussion and the one about the future of large format film had one basic problem in its context. I don't think that anyone would argue that the sales of film has plummeted in the past decade and that digital has taken over. But is the trend a steady sharp line to zero or is does it flatten out before the bottom?

I cannot buy a digital back for my MF at today's prices as they cost more than I have ever paid for a vehicle. When the price of used ones drops to where I feel I can justify to myself I will buy one but, and that is a big but, I will still continue to shoot film as well. Just as I currently also shoot digital. On many outings the cost of a few rolls of film and the chemicals pales compared to the cost of getting there in the first place.

I really do not care if someone with a $7K digital camera can print large images that they think are better than possible with film or someone with film feels they cannot. What are the market trends in regards to film sales, new and used cameras, and other aspects that will guide to predicting the future rather than describing the past. With road bikes the trend at one time looked like they would disappear but that curve flattened and started to rise slightly. That is what I would be intrerested in knowing, has the slope leveled off or risen or is it still in a steep or even increasingly steeper slope. Are there enough of us who want to and are actually using film to continue its production? And that includes those who shoot primarily digital to those who are exclusively film. If I count the number of images I shoot per year than over half are digital but I still am a consumer of film. I just hope there are enough of us out there. It had been posted on the Hasselblad user group that the poster had noticed an increase in prices. I would have thought that if film sales were dropping like they were a few years ago this would not have been the case but that is just an assumption on my part.

Please everyone do not consrue this as an anti-digtal rant or that digital storage is not cheaper than film or any of those other arguements that I am not interested in joining in. I shoot both, and I love both but I want to be able to continue using whichever I perfer for what purpose I have in mind. I read what others have to say to try to understand better not to persuade someone to change what they are using. And as such this will be my only posting.

[Marko]

And after you transfer the files from the cards and erase them you have another 6 rolls and they can be erased and re-used many times.

Yes, and I don't have to care about the x-ray machines or ignorant security personnel opening the package either. Bob, I was agreeing with you, I think you missed my point. I should've said that $49 buys only five rolls of 120 with processing... :)


We have as big or bigger interest in film staying since we are the distributors for Linhof, Wista and Rodenstock. But digital is a fact of life and it is here.

Have you checked what a well stocked dealers film shelves and refrigerators look like today and compared it to what was in them 10 years ago?

Exactly. Facts are what they are, they don't care about our likes, dislikes or wishes. I have compared the availability of film as one of the indicators of the trend on the other thread and got roundly trashed for it because some people don't seem capable of separating their preferences from the facts on the ground.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

The sheer volume of medium format films that commercial, wedding, and fashion photogs once shot will never again be replicated, any retro resurgence fad notwithstanding. Even if all the sturdy pro MF gear that got abandoned in recent years trickles down to enthusiasts hands, and Ektar 100 in 120 is received with wild praise, sales will be a mere echo of what once was. Keep in mind how it was largely the high recurring consumables cost that drove pros into $30K-50K digital backs.

Refrigerators? Fuggetabouddit, they're gone almost everywhere since sales from them have not been worth the electricity to run them. Hopefully there is enough sales for boutique e-commerce sites, for keeping stocks fresh for the highest volume dealers at least.

It's anybody's guess where the money is going to come from for any new R&D of filmstocks to keep up with Moore's Law in sensor development beyond a couple of years out. Good thing film is already so good. (Unfortunately drum scanners are time-warp frozen at about the year 1998; desktop MF ones about 2003).

[Marko]

It had been posted on the Hasselblad user group that the poster had noticed an increase in prices. I would have thought that if film sales were dropping like they were a few years ago this would not have been the case but that is just an assumption on my part.

We never had a chance to really discuss the issue of trends on the other trend because we were too busy being offended by what the other had to say. Perhaps we can try again?

The assumption certainly makes sense in the normal market conditions. The question is whether normal market conditions still apply to film, especially roll film?

My opinion - and I repeat, it is just an opinion - is that film has already become a niche product and that is the reason of increasing prices. I still think that the two main trend indicators are 1) production and sales of film cameras and 2) available stock of the product (film) in retail stores.

It is obvious to me that the two are closely linked to each other, similar to cars and gasoline - gasoline will keep being available for some time after the production of gasoline-powered cars ceases, but for how long? And what would be the minimum viable production of gasoline-powered engines for any purpose to keep production of gasoline going?

[Bob Salomon]

"Refrigerators? Fuggetabouddit, they're gone almost everywhere "

Not so, Since Jan. 5th I have visited dealers in San Francisco, LA, Chicago, NYC, Albuquerque, LAs Vegas, Iowa, North and South Carolina and New Jersey.

All have film refrigerators. After all, they have been in the stores for quite a while! The change is that they were not full of film. Many, besides film, had plenty of room for water, soft drinks, ice tea and lunches. Next week I go to the Pacific NW and expect to see the same.

Not all of the dealers still have the film refrigerator on the selling floor anymore though.

[Drew Wiley]

While the abundance of used med format equipment for sale obviously disincentifies
mfg of new cameras, what I tend to watch is what does get sold. Just as in LF, there
are a lot of second-string MF lenses and bodies readily available, but the good stuff sells pretty quickly. You get these roller-coaster spikes where a new digital offering
might cause a lot of MF gear to temporarily come onto the used market, but it never
seems to be long till it gets snatched up. I doubt all those cameras and lenses are just
sitting on mantlpieces; nor in this internet age would there be much reason for dealers
to grab and stockpile them. I can only conclude that there is still considerable interest
in film-MF just as in LF. But I see the drift in weddings photographers going to DLSR's,
not digital MF. This tendency will only increase as DLSRS improve in their rendition of
highlights and skintones (certainly not their strong point right now!). But you have to
offset this with the fact that many,many MF cameras are in use, well-built, and will
drive a demand for appropriate film for some time. 120 film is abundant and very cheap
to shoot (especially if your norm is 8X10!). The current selection is excellent. Who cares if the cumulative volume is far below its heyday? As long as there are labs who
have E-6 and C-41 lines it is obscenely premature to predict the demise of color 120,
and b&w has far more options. And there are still many pro portrait/wedding photographers who standardize on 120 color neg film - just check out the Fuji and Kodak websites per pro applications if you think otherwise? It's certainly not a subject on their backburner. I don't know where people are shopping, but I certainly have no
trouble finding all kinds of 120 film, even though I only shoot a few rolls a year (not
because I have a DLSR, but because 8X10 is what REAL photographers use!)

[Wallace_Billingham]

The thing of it is that Medium Format Film, and LF Sheet film is really not that hard to make and can be made from the same master stock. Roll films with paper backings and sheet film was being made long before 35mm film was being put into metal cans.

As an example Efke makes it's film with a staff of less than 50 people and turns a nice profit making film in runs of around 10,000 rolls, sheets, or a combo of both. Using the same machines and processes for the most part that they were doing 60 years ago.

Kodak used to make film in batches that were miles long and would make millions of rolls, today they make it in Rochester in much smaller batches of around 100,000 units.

Think about those numbers for a second. Efke could make a whole production run to service 1,000 people shooting 10 rolls or sheets of film, or 100 people shooting 100 rolls or sheets of film. I shot close to 500 rolls and sheets of film last year, so it does not take to many people to make a market in such things

The other thing to consider is that Large Format Gear has been a niche product for a long time. You just never really strolled into your local five and dime and got a 4x5 camera and a bunch of sheets of film. Yet you can still easily buy brand new LF Cameras, Lenses, and other goodies, and these are not consumables like film is. How is there enough profit for Camera and Lens companies to have kept making such things over the years but film is going to be gone in no time. That is just plain silly.

In my town (with a large Amish community) I can go to one of several stores and buy chemical supplies for outhouses. If companies can make a profit making chemicals for people without indoor plumbing (and just think how few people that is) I am pretty sure that companies can make a nice profit making film for the millions of people around the world who use it. Forty One years from now in 2050 (I will be dead then) the population of the earth is projected to be 9.3 Billion people. If only 100,000 people out of that number (0.001%) shoot 10 rolls or sheets of film in a year that would be a million units of something than can be cheaply made. Someone will make it somewhere

[Marko]

The other thing to consider is that Large Format Gear has been a niche product for a long time. You just never really strolled into your local five and dime and got a 4x5 camera and a bunch of sheets of film. Yet you can still easily buy brand new LF Cameras, Lenses, and other goodies, and these are not consumables like film is. How is there enough profit for Camera and Lens companies to have kept making such things over the years but film is going to be gone in no time. That is just plain silly.

Nobody is saying that film is going to vanish or cease to exist, but it will stop being a mainstream photography medium and will become a fine art alternative process. It is already rapidly becoming a niche product, which is a different market with different rules. As such, it will be available for a long time, but not in the way it was in the past and not unlike vinyl records and such.

[Ben Syverson]

Dude. Film already is a "fine art alternative process."

It stopped being "mainstream" roughly 6 years ago.

[sanking]

Ain't it so. Some ten years ago, maybe more, I was in the studio of a commercial photographer who had a business in my hometown for more than 50 years. His comment to me then was, "photography as you and I know it is dead."

So what? The only certain thing in life is change. You can bet that 120 film, the DSLR as we know it, printers as we know them, and every other image making system that exists today is on a fast track to oblivion. As are individual human beings.

Why would anyone want to argue about this? Just use the best technology for whatever type of photography you want to do now, at this time in history. Compare technologies and use what is best for you.

The superior technology that will be available in the future is sure to be very different, whether MF roll film, LF film, or today's DSLR or MF digital back.

Sandy King







Dude. It already is a "fine art alternative process."

It stopped being "mainstream" roughly 6 years ago.

[Ben Syverson]

I totally agree, which is why I shoot 8x10.


Why would anyone want to argue about this? Just use the best technology for whatever type of photography you want to do now, at this time in history.

[Drew Wiley]

The driving force behind roll film volume was the wedding/portrait professional.
Product photography was always better done with view cameras. Once a pro discovered a niche or signature look to his work, he tended to stick with it. And for
this reason, some are still depending on the films which have worked for them in the past. Of course, if they want to stay competitive over the long haul they probably have to adapt to digital also. A lot of younger pros go straight for digital.
If clients are in a hurry and their priority is posting something on the web for their
friends ASAP, digital is the only realistic option. Yet if someone shows up at a
wedding with an amateur DLSR and the same skill set as everyone in your office,
why bother hiring anyone? Get your friends to do it (which is exactly what I'm
beginning to see happen). The real problem with film at the moment is that less and
less places do the proofing of negs, and digital elimintes the expense and delay,
often even editing itself. But even though this kind of work is not my cup of tea,
about once a year someone will come along specifically because they like my style.
They want real film, real darkroom prints, maybe color, maybe b&w, maybe both.
They look at actual portfolios and framed prints, not websites, and are not only
willing to pay and wait for the result, but to sit in front of one of our dagors, cookes, or smith& pinkhams. My Nikon or Pentax 6x7 will also yield wonderful results
with traditional film if I need something more fluid. The point is, that if someone
wants get into this type of work full-time, they in fact have a competitive niche of
their own by offering a skill set that is slowly dying off among others. And there
are plenty of 120 films still around to facilitate this. Color printing paper is not an
issue either, because the newest stuff is being deliberately engineered to perform
superbly both under optical enlargement and the popular digital devices (Lightjet, Chromira,etc.) I fact, just this evening I was mounting a 30x40 print optically enlarged from the newest version of Crystal Archive. Compared to what was available just a decade ago, color negs and print papers have come a very long way.
R&D in this category is anything but stagnant.

[Brian Ellis]

"I asked this the last time you talked about the 40% increase and didn't get a response so I'll try again. Could you provide a link or a cite to a source for that statement? I ask because I've never seen anything from Kodak that separated film sales out by size. And the statement is kind of meaningless without knowing the period covered by this supposed increase, i.e. from when to when did sales of LF film increase by this amount? Thanks."

Hi Brian, I apologize for not responding, with all the comments in here you don't notice nor answer everyone. Regarding the 40% increase in sales for large format film by Kodak, that source was from the article PHOTOKINA IMPRESSIONS 2008 that I provided a link to in my previous comment. Here it is again..... http://www.thiaps.com/editors/

The actual paragraph is almost half way down the page and says ..."Kodak is lately as well reporting positive figures in film-and film related sales. A 40% increase solely with 4x5 films, as an example, was rumored around in the ample halls of Photokina."

From the reviews I have been reading about Photokina 2008, the comments have always been very positive for film (sales increasing), and Photokina is the leading edge for news. As far as a 37 inch print.....I agree not everyday do we make a print that size, but try that with a 5DII (they both look great as long as both can print at 300ppi, but the 5DII is already interpolating at 16x20 while film keeps on going). Look at any photographers fine art website, and you almost always see images offered up to 30x40 and even 70 inches. Not every customer may want a big print, but still we must be able to provide it. This is where digital fails and film meets fine art and pro landscape needs.... these requirements are not an issue with wedding and commercial shooters who stick with magazine sized prints or 11x14. For this market digital is "good enough", but good enough is not enough for the fine art market.

I agree though, 120 film is the next one to get hit hard, but many are also shooting 612 and 617. The affordability of digital backs is what will keep 120 sales strong, mfrs are predictably greedy. The P45 fell in price, but the next model raised price back to original levels. If you get 10 yrs from your 120 system, you saved yourself a bundle of $. Of course if your a high volume shooter (wedding, commercial), then digital is your only choice....scanning 200-300 images a day would drive you nuts.

We keep arguing digital vs film. It isn't really which one is better, it is really about different products serving different needs for different markets. The fact that film sales have stabilized and are now growing shows that they are not competing against eachother. Many switched to digital already, others switched back to film, and everyone has found what works for them. Both products serve different needs, just like a SUV and a luxury car can both sell well.

Thanks, I appreciate the response. But as I'm sure you realize, there's a big difference between a statement from Kodak or even from someone in a position to actually know something about Kodak's film sales and a rumor floating around Photokina. I don't believe the rumor is true for the reason I've mentioned before - to my knowledge Kodak doesn't publicly release numbers about sales of film in particular formats or how sales in a particular format compare from one period to another.



I

[Michael_4514]

I was at B&H yesterday. As many of you undoubtedly know, the film counter used to be in the front of the store, at the corner of 9th Avenue and 34th Street. A year or two ago it shrunk to about a third of its size and moved to the interior, more or less in the middle of nowhere.

Thinking of this thread, and others like it, I asked the salesperson "so how are film sales?" He just gave me that look and said slow. Slow and getting slower. Then he told me that the film counter is getting moved again, to a tiny corner in the back, and it will be even smaller.

On the bright side, he said that there will always be film. Maybe he doesn't know what he's talking about. If in doubt, buy a freezer and stock up now. But I don't see film disappearing.

That works for me. In my view, it is inevitable that digital, or something else, will surpass film in quality, but I could care less one way or the other. I like the photographic process. That's why I do it. I like digital too. A very different thing in my book. But if it gets to the point that I start to like digital more than I like film, then I'll follow that siren. I don't see it happening, but what's the point in worrying about it, much less having an endless debate over something that is unknowable -- the future.

[Jim Chinn]

It really is a simple matter of cost. With so much demand destruction due to pros migrating to digital, prices continue to increase to make up for lost volume. Every increase probably prices out a small segment of the hobbyist/amatuer crowd which in big enough numbers requires prices to go up again continuing the cycle. The question is does demand and price stabalize at a sustainable level or does downward spiral continue until companies such as Ilford, Fuji and Kodak leave the market place?

I think we will always have 120 film in some form, but I don't think we will ever replace the quality and consistency of an Ilford, Kodak or Fuji.

However I am doing my part for 120 as I have migrated mostly from LF. For the biggest enlargements I make (16x20) 6x7 or 4x5 is fine and anything I might want to contact print I can have a friend produce a digital negative for alternative process printing. I am taking a workshop to learn wet plate this summer for 8x10 and 11x14. The reason I have migrated mostly to 120 is on my budget I have been effectively priced out of 8x10 and larger.