PDA

View Full Version : The Resurgence of Film!!!



tgtaylor
25-May-2016, 19:36
The great yellow father says: "REAL FILM IS BACK!" http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/corp/Press_center/CANNES_2016_Heralds_Resurgence_of_KODAK_Motion_Picture_Film/default.htm

Thomas

brucetaylor
25-May-2016, 21:40
That is outstanding news. Thanks for sharing!

Randy Moe
25-May-2016, 22:12
Kodak movie film, does this have any direct effect on still film?

Second question. Does this mean I should not recycle the two 16mm upright Movieola's rotting in our shop? The owner has decided to strip them for sculpture bits, but they take up space...

If he had plans to use them for movies they would stay. :)

Pfsor
26-May-2016, 02:38
Well, well, well. If Kodak says it, it surely must be true! What I read is: after having failed in the digital, we try to bang our former glory in the analogue. The "new" progress of film is in fact just the old rest of it, still hanging around. Happy dreaming, Kodak!

pdh
26-May-2016, 03:38
Kodak movie film, does this have any direct effect on still film?


Without the production of cine film in quantity, it is unlikely that Kodak could run their enormous coating and finishing lines economically just for the production of consumer still films.

Thad Gerheim
26-May-2016, 06:15
Well, well, well. If Kodak says it, it surely must be true! What I read is: after having failed in the digital, we try to bang our former glory in the analogue. The "new" progress of film is in fact just the old rest of it, still hanging around. Happy dreaming, Kodak!

Are you sure that you are on the right forum?

I happen to own a gallery in a tiny tourist town in the middle of a large rural area, selling film based photos, and had a very good last year for only being open four months.

The two comments I hear the most are "I would have never expected a gallery like this in this town" and "WOW, this isn't digital is it?"

I hear from students that they are glad their college went back to teaching film, some are only shooting film for a year! Even had high school students, from Santa Barbara, say that they are taking darkroom classes.

Call it retro or whatever, but there is a different look to film and a renewed interest in film.

We should be cheering "GO KODAK!"

Bill_1856
26-May-2016, 06:25
Dream on....

Kirk Gittings
26-May-2016, 07:55
Kodak has been mismanaged for so long I have a hard time taking anything they say or do seriously, but.......there is always hope. I hope this dance with film directors is more than a desperate PR effort.

Randy Moe
26-May-2016, 08:39
+1.

Drew Wiley
26-May-2016, 09:47
Anything "alternative" in cinema, which apparently now includes "retro" interest in real film, has quite a bit of interest around here. There are not only mildewed old private theaters dedicated to it (big deal), but the huge brand new Pacific Film Archive complex (actually big deal, financially, with some very influential sponsors). All it takes are a few very well heeled Hollywood types. And now it appears that there is going to be a massive pipeline of joint venture projects with big Chinese studios. Of course, this will go all kinds of directions, animation, black and white real film, hybrid, alternative digital. I won't spend a minute of my time involved with this. And other than keeping certain coating lines potentially alive, it hardly solves our issues with color sheet film. I suspect that's a battle we'll have to fight ourselves, or die in the trenches. I'll die anyway from old age, but in the meantime can prolong my own sheet film use for the duration with a simple freezer. I anticipate that black and white sheet film is in far less danger. Just glad that I've already had decades to enjoy it. There is nothing permanent
but change. The only other universal constant it that publicly traded corporations, given a choice, will always do something stupid.

tgtaylor
27-May-2016, 07:14
The idea that Kodak talked the directors of 100 motion pictures to shoot on film rather than digital last year as a publicity stunt is ludicrous in the extreme.

I hope that with the world wide turn around in film sales, Kodak and other manufacturers will restart film R&D which has stagnated for well over a decade now. Film can only get better.

Thomas

Bob Salomon
27-May-2016, 07:17
The idea that Kodak talked the directors of 100 motion pictures to shoot on film rather than digital last year as a publicity stunt is ludicrous in the extreme.

I hope that with the world wide turn around in film sales, Kodak and other manufacturers will restart film R&D which has stagnated for well over a decade now. Film can only get better.

Thomas
It is more likely that the directors used film as a PR stunt then that Kodak arranged it.

tgtaylor
27-May-2016, 07:22
Thst' even more silly! Did you see film being mentioned in the trailers? Film was only alluded to in the credits with the Kodak or fuji logo and the camera credits.

Thomas

Bob Salomon
27-May-2016, 07:26
Thst' even more silly! Did you see film being mentioned in the trailers? Film was only alluded to in the credits with the Kodak or fuji logo and the camera credits.

Thomas

Doesn't have to be in the credits. It is passed around the industry itself. The picture going public really doesn't care if it was shot on film stock or digital medium. It is a non starter for them. But it does make a statement to movie producers and creative types.

Kirk Gittings
27-May-2016, 07:33
Just a question these days. Even though a movie is shot on film are we watching it directly from a film print or is it digitized?

bdkphoto
27-May-2016, 07:47
Just a question these days. Even though a movie is shot on film are we watching it directly from a film print or is it digitized?

It's projected digitally. There is no real "film" involved in film anymore - even when its shot on film stock, it is edited, mixed, cgi'd, and delivered to the theater in digital format.

Drew Wiley
27-May-2016, 08:08
And that's the real problem with film volume. The initial shoot is just so much; the significantly greater "afterwards" need for film for theater distribution is nearly extinct.

Randy Moe
27-May-2016, 09:03
"Watching a movie shot on 35mm and projected on 35mm is certainly a different experience, and for a lot of older films that have (ironically) been restored digitally and then printed back out to 35, they look amazing. I've seen lots of these restored films, which probably look better than they ever did due to improvements in technology. While there are plenty of movies still shooting on film, pretty much none are finished on film -- they've got some sort of digital intermediate going on in-between."

Excerpt from Tarantino rant, http://nofilmschool.com/2014/05/quentin-tarantino-cannes-35mm-digital-projection-death-cinema

tgtaylor
27-May-2016, 09:08
https://stephenfollows.com/film-vs-digital/

http://filmmakermagazine.com/88971-39-movies-released-in-2014-shot-on-35mm/

https://www.phactual.com/8-directors-who-still-use-film-stock-instead-of-digital-photography/

Thomas

Drew Wiley
27-May-2016, 10:06
I just don't go to theaters anyway. For one thing, I don't care for the look of movies shot video or digital to begin with. Second, most of these simply come with the territory of less than inspired cameramen, since so much can be post-altered digitally rather than shot smart to begin with. Third, I can't stand loud venues where
you sit around for an hour watching subliminal content inspiring you to buy more overpriced popcorn and soda, while waiting for some stupid teenage action flick
to begin, catching their flu germs in the meantime. Fourth, I have way better things to do in my spare time. Fifth, I can always watch something at home on a disc at my leisure. All this means the people like me have essentially zero influence of what the industry does, because we contribute almost no money to it.

EdSawyer
27-May-2016, 10:13
Not necessarily. There are still those who are dedicated to doing it all in the film domain, incl. projection. Tarantino is the most well known of these but there are others.


It's projected digitally. There is no real "film" involved in film anymore - even when its shot on film stock, it is edited, mixed, cgi'd, and delivered to the theater in digital format.

Kirk Gittings
27-May-2016, 10:37
I am about half with you Drew. Hollywood is largely sooooo unimpressive despite how hard they try to do so with CG effects. I go to about tw0 movies a year and like one of them. The problem is not film vs. digital but lame overblown ideas in both. I hated the Hateful 8-widescreen technicolor can not recuse a lame cliched idea.

Drew Wiley
27-May-2016, 10:55
Redford is another major player. Like I hinted earlier, this is the town, and UCB Pacific Film Archive is the venue that would know. But I'm betting a helluva lot of the "alt" momentum rather than going retro will gravitate toward convenience video flicks, given the fact that can now be done with DLSR's. The single serious advantage real film has at the moment is that a few big name directors with real budgets are advocating it. By comparison, it's an absolute jungle trying to break through the vast herd of competition at the low end. The equipment or tech side of all this doesn't really concern me. Some of the best photographed movies I've seen from recent years were made in China and Vietnam. Sometimes we'll rent a disc for the alleged superb acting or our own in-house popcorn evening, like last nite. Fortunately, I took a nap earlier in the evening. But for sheer filming and lighting technique, some of the classic old black and white flicks have never been surpassed yet.

Randy Moe
27-May-2016, 11:03
I refused to succumb to peer pressure to see 'Hatefull'. I had a free pass to see it projected on film, correctly as Music Box can do it right!

I asked my friends how they liked it and for a brief synopsis. Very glad I did not see such a waste of 'reel film'.

They did not like it. Ha

The key to movie theaters for me is, go during afternoon senior discount, never buy the crappy popcorn, candy, soda and sit so nobody is in front on me.

I like full immersion from close viewing positions. I am happy to follow action with my entire head.

I never sit among the masses, who seem to need a crowd.

This is also self protective, as I weep during almost any big screen movie. I buy into emotion so intensely that it's embarrassing. Few know this. It's a secret. :)

Drew Wiley
27-May-2016, 11:41
I weep because I would far rather either be out shooting or in the darkroom. I weep because I have to use earplugs to keep my ears from ringing, the damn speakers are so loud. I weep because the kid behind me is has Ebola and is picking his nose. I weep because we just wasted fifteen bucks just to get in, and I can't stand the smell of artificial butter all around me. I weep because the insanely overpaid actor in the movie is probably a total jerk in real life.

Randy Moe
27-May-2016, 11:50
I weep because I would far rather either be out shooting or in the darkroom. I weep because I have to use earplugs to keep my ears from ringing, the damn speakers are so loud. I weep because the kid behind me is has Ebola and is picking his nose. I weep because we just wasted fifteen bucks just to get in, and I can't stand the smell of artificial butter all around me. I weep because the insanely overpaid actor in the movie is probably a total jerk in real life.

You need a hanky...

bdkphoto
27-May-2016, 12:08
Not necessarily. There are still those who are dedicated to doing it all in the film domain, incl. projection. Tarantino is the most well known of these but there are others.

I never said the number was zero -but- there are no major theater chains projecting film anymore, just some art houses. Tarantino had to fight like hell to get his movie premiered with a projector. The rest of the world watched digital prints of it. If you checked out the first link in tgtaylors post #19 it shows that nearly 90% of hollywoods top 100 grossing films were shot digitally in 2015. The use of film is actually declining in hollywood, not growing. The are lots of folks who like film, but the industry has moved on.

For me the move to digital has opened up creative opportunities. I directed a music video last year and I'm working on some new "motion" art projects. My friends and colleagues - folks that have made there living shooting for the likes of National Geo - are now doing full length documentaries along side of their stills work. I think it's fantastic.

All this has next to nothing to do with large format photography. I've seen the numbers for professional photographers in the US and less than 5% shoot film (of any kind) - even just occasionally. The numbers have stayed flat over the last few years, but there is no actually growth in film use.

tgtaylor
27-May-2016, 12:25
If you think there hasn't been a growth in film usage, you need to reread the link. 90% of Hollywood's top grossing films (if true) is not 90% of all films. Moreover, only 39 films were shot on 35mm the previous year compared with the 100 last year (some, of which , were 16mm, 65/70mm).

A couple of random quotes:

“There’s nothing wrong with 35mm film; it didn’t need replacing. People simply thought that digital capture was a cheaper way of doing it. However, digital is more complicated and, in some cases, it requires a more expensive process.” Two film stocks helped him deal with extremes of light (the desert) and dark (“a completely black set”), and the resolution is preferable to his way of thinking: “To capture all the resolution of an anamorphic 35mm image, you need a scan somewhere between 8K and 12K. So while everyone brags about 4K cameras and scans, we’re shooting on, effectively, a 10K camera. Why replace that with an inferior technology?”

Ditto Philippe Garrel, whose Jealousy avoided a digital intermediate no less: in an email Ted Fendt shared with me, d.p. Willy Kurant observed that “the prints on release stock are clearly superior to the digital copies — the blacks in low light and the details in the whites.” (Garrel’s next film, L’ombre des femmes, is being made the same way.)

Thomas

Drew Wiley
27-May-2016, 13:07
There's a more sinister side to all this. Ever notice how name-branded gas station franchisees get forced into fancy upgrades like mini-marts, and once they get neck deep into debt in order to meet this demand, guess who ends up owning the station outright? I suspect that this same kind of takeover strategy has factored into neighborhood theaters being forced into very expensive new digital projection technology. It's about big studio controlled near-monopolies. Hence the associated drift into an emphasis on teenage blockbuster action flicks. They're the ones spend on theaters, and by essentially taking over what does or does not survive as a theater, the big dogs have closed the loop in film distribution. Don't worry, there's plenty of rebellion out there, just as in all the arts. But it won't
bring us back the Yellow Father.

StoneNYC
28-May-2016, 08:30
I never said the number was zero -but- there are no major theater chains projecting film anymore, just some art houses. Tarantino had to fight like hell to get his movie premiered with a projector. The rest of the world watched digital prints of it. If you checked out the first link in tgtaylors post #19 it shows that nearly 90% of hollywoods top 100 grossing films were shot digitally in 2015. The use of film is actually declining in hollywood, not growing. The are lots of folks who like film, but the industry has moved on.

For me the move to digital has opened up creative opportunities. I directed a music video last year and I'm working on some new "motion" art projects. My friends and colleagues - folks that have made there living shooting for the likes of National Geo - are now doing full length documentaries along side of their stills work. I think it's fantastic.

All this has next to nothing to do with large format photography. I've seen the numbers for professional photographers in the US and less than 5% shoot film (of any kind) - even just occasionally. The numbers have stayed flat over the last few years, but there is no actually growth in film use.

This is just not true... I don't know where you get your facts.

Yes many houses have converted to digital, but there are lots of movie theaters that still project film, but just art houses, it just depends where you go. They often keep a few set up for certain movies.

When it comes to BIG BUGET films, there are still many that use film. It's the smaller budget films that use digital, this isn't really the cost of the film or the processing, which I've been told is pretty much the same in the film vs digital compassion, it's a "cost" of the additional steps involved and access to the camera equipment vs shooting on the RED cameras or Canon etc. Additional people, and access to loaders who actually know how to load, which are disappearing. So it's just easier to use digital not the cost of the film, labor and steps cheaper. This is what I've been told by all the camera operators, DP's and loaders I've asked. I "got out" a little over a year ago, so I will admit my info is "dated" by a year, but movies are 2 years out anyway so it's not totally off.

I believe the professional stats, but that's because most "professional photographers" do weddings et al. So yea, that makes sense.

bdkphoto
28-May-2016, 09:40
This is just not true... I don't know where you get your facts.

Yes many houses have converted to digital, but there are lots of movie theaters that still project film, but just art houses, it just depends where you go. They often keep a few set up for certain movies.

When it comes to BIG BUGET films, there are still many that use film. It's the smaller budget films that use digital, this isn't really the cost of the film or the processing, which I've been told is pretty much the same in the film vs digital compassion, it's a "cost" of the additional steps involved and access to the camera equipment vs shooting on the RED cameras or Canon etc. Additional people, and access to loaders who actually know how to load, which are disappearing. So it's just easier to use digital not the cost of the film, labor and steps cheaper. This is what I've been told by all the camera operators, DP's and loaders I've asked. I "got out" a little over a year ago, so I will admit my info is "dated" by a year, but movies are 2 years out anyway so it's not totally off.

I believe the professional stats, but that's because most "professional photographers" do weddings et al. So yea, that makes sense.

The op has taken a little pr piece from Kodak and extrapolated a film rebirth that does not really exist. He quotes a few dps who are taking about why they still shoot film, but chooses not to quote the part of the article that says the norm for hollywood is digital ( the article was from 2014). Its also convenient to ignore the fact that virtually every other aspect and genre of filmmaking is digital - documentary, TV, news, commercial, editorial etc...and it also has nothing to do with large format photography.

I've been in the photography business for 35 years, and had the opportunity to work as a second unit DP on a full length 35mm feature about 25 years back (Arri and Kodak stock). It was a multi-million dollar indy production with Paul Sorvino, Rita Moreno, Jonathan Silverman. Last I saw of our producer was a fews years back when he won a best picture Oscar. Working the movie was wonderful opportunity that I couldn't pass up even thought I had no intention of giving up shooting stills. I also teach at ICP, and served of the board of directors of ASMP, so my information comes from actually working in this industry and seeing actual data on our business.

I will quote some teacherly advice from my above post:

For me the move to digital has opened up creative opportunities. I directed a music video last year and I'm working on some new "motion" art projects. My friends and colleagues - folks that have made their living shooting for the likes of National Geo - are now doing full length documentaries along side of their stills work. I think it's fantastic.

If you want to spend your time arguing about film and digital, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll let us know when you get to direct, or DP a film.

tgtaylor
28-May-2016, 21:21
Of course the press release is "a little pr" - all press releases are PR...LOL! But that doesn't meant that they are not true. A few years back Kodak was on the verge of discontinuing all film manufacturing which caused alarm among several directors who threatened to stop making films if film was discontinued. Since then film sales have rebounded to the extent that Kodak and others many manufactors have reported a profit instead of a loss. That profit has increased to the point that Kodak has begun to reinvest in manufacturing facilities and labs for film development which hinder market expansion. That expansion in the market, from 39 Films to 100 fim in a period of one year is what fueled Kodak's decision to invest in infrastructure and a the press release on it was appropriate.

If you want to spend your time with your head in the sand bashing film, knock yourself out . But don't, expect me to take one of your "classes."

Thomas

Kirk Gittings
28-May-2016, 21:45
"I believe the professional stats, but that's because most "professional photographers" do weddings et al. So yea, that makes sense."

?

Randy Moe
28-May-2016, 21:53
This month alone I had 2 younger guys ask how to develop 16mm movie film.

One makes Docs, the other music vids. Both bad researchers as the amount of info on that topic is sufficient for this still shooter.

My first suggestion was to use buckets and slosh it. Their micro-momentary facial twitches were hilarious.

Then I mentioned the Ferris wheel dryer...

Alan Gales
28-May-2016, 22:13
Film is pretty much dead. As long as there is enough demand and it is profitable then it will be produced. I shoot digital as well as film. I like digital but I love film. It's not just the film. I love the old film cameras. Digital is nice but it leaves me a bit cold. I don't need to explain. You all understand.

The best thing that we can do is to promote film to young people. When young people come on the forum asking questions then help them without being condescending. They may be asking questions that are easy to Google but please remember that we are the ambassadors for film.

Randy Moe
28-May-2016, 22:23
Alan, I want them to do it on film, but I also want them to get the job done, make some money, marry and procreate. Not kidding about that one bit. These are 40 and 50 year old men who need to wake up.

Life is short and they get pissed when I remind them.

Why just the other day I was...

jnanian
29-May-2016, 06:27
if the surge in film trickles down to consumers using more 35mm film ( and other formats ) good luck to them !
the process - infrastructure was dismantled steadily over the last IDK 10 years ..

John Kasaian
29-May-2016, 07:40
What keeps me out of movie theaters is Hollywood.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeAKX_0wZWY

tgtaylor
30-May-2016, 08:08
https://youtu.be/EGCKRTWiiY4

Thomas

tgtaylor
30-May-2016, 08:58
https://youtu.be/OxTV3h0kEtc

Thomas

Sal Santamaura
30-May-2016, 09:11
I can think of no motion picture less useful as support for the position that film is superior than The Hateful Eight. Absolute garbage in terms of content; not impressive at all technically. And I saw the Road Show in 70mm on its opening day.

Argentum
30-May-2016, 10:52
Some film makers are trying to keep film alive for its aesthetic and the want it in the cinemas if at all possible for the enhanced visual experience.

http://thehatefuleight.com/roadshow

Argentum
30-May-2016, 10:55
I can think of no motion picture less useful as support for the position that film is superior than The Hateful Eight. Absolute garbage in terms of content; not impressive at all technically. And I saw the Road Show in 70mm on its opening day.

Maybe you were just miserable becasue it was christmas. Bah humbug !

MAubrey
30-May-2016, 11:45
I'm reminded of this article from last year: http://www.indiewire.com/article/christopher-nolan-urges-hollywood-to-keep-film-alive-for-future-generations-20150310

Sal Santamaura
30-May-2016, 13:48
I can think of no motion picture less useful as support for the position that film is superior than The Hateful Eight. Absolute garbage in terms of content; not impressive at all technically. And I saw the Road Show in 70mm on its opening day.


Maybe you were just miserable becasue it was christmas. Bah humbug !Not at all; the specific day on which that experience happened had nothing to do with my observations.

Been reading TOP? :)

Kirk Gittings
30-May-2016, 14:31
I hated it too. IMHO a waste of "film" despite all the hype about it being shot on film and how great that was. 90% of the film was shot in this claustrophobic room-hardly where widescreen technicolor shines. I went to see it with a few photographer friends, both old school film guys and new and we universally hated it.

Leszek Vogt
30-May-2016, 14:49
With the "film back", that also means that labs will need to be back too. I've been watching some superb indie films over the years....and I can completely avoid abe nything the Hollywood makes (on film or digi). This reminds me of a silly (but v. poignant) 16mm was made....of vacationers that came yearly to the Adirondacks. It was made using a Bolex with 3 small lenses, but it was v. personal. The audio wasn't even in sync....the track had to be laid afterwards. Yes, it had an interesting *story*, which Hollywood, no matter how much cash is pumped into it, fails to recognize. The motto continues to be "give em what they want"....so the (over-the-top) violence, computer graphics, etc, etc continue.

Les

Argentum
30-May-2016, 16:39
Not at all; the specific day on which that experience happened had nothing to do with my observations.

Been reading TOP? :)

The point is that there are film makers out there wanting to keep film alive which can only be a good thing. Although given that kodak can't make their mind up whether they're into film or not I would rather other film manufacturers were making movie film.
Do Ilford still make B&W movie film?

Sal Santamaura
30-May-2016, 16:59
...Do Ilford still make B&W movie film?Not that I'm aware of. Someone who took the factory tour might jump in here and verify that / correct me.

Oren Grad
30-May-2016, 18:11
Do Ilford still make B&W movie film?

Long gone, alas.

Ulophot
31-May-2016, 06:59
Digital technology is a wonder in some ways, and we cannot forget that it allows us such fora as this, and the ability to post digital images. Nonetheless, the mastery of the craftsmanship of the older processes certainly resonates with most of us, I imagine, in this forum -- the ability to produce a silvery image from a single, silver exposure.
I'm no film historian, but an experience during college speaks to the issue. Truffaut's B&W L'Enfant Sauvage (The Wild Child, about the education of a feral child discovered in France in the 1700s) came out in 1970, and the remarkably soft, silvery look of the film was striking. I asked my film history/film-collector teacher about filtration. He replied that the real issue was the processing, which, in B&W film making, was then becoming a lost art, he said. 1970.
Again, digital means allow controls far beyond the means of traditional processes, from sharpening to contrast curve control, from full image down to the pixel. As Edgar Allen Poe elucidated so beautifully in his Philosophy of Composition, the effect is a prime consideration; to what end, is another. As other posters have noted, whether a Hollywood blockbuster is shot on film or sensor will not alter its content for the better. That is not to say, however, that film in the hands of a master necessarily loses content for lack of digital wizardry. I say, long live film!

StoneNYC
31-May-2016, 08:03
The op has taken a little pr piece from Kodak and extrapolated a film rebirth that does not really exist. He quotes a few dps who are taking about why they still shoot film, but chooses not to quote the part of the article that says the norm for hollywood is digital ( the article was from 2014). Its also convenient to ignore the fact that virtually every other aspect and genre of filmmaking is digital - documentary, TV, news, commercial, editorial etc...and it also has nothing to do with large format photography.

I've been in the photography business for 35 years, and had the opportunity to work as a second unit DP on a full length 35mm feature about 25 years back (Arri and Kodak stock). It was a multi-million dollar indy production with Paul Sorvino, Rita Moreno, Jonathan Silverman. Last I saw of our producer was a fews years back when he won a best picture Oscar. Working the movie was wonderful opportunity that I couldn't pass up even thought I had no intention of giving up shooting stills. I also teach at ICP, and served of the board of directors of ASMP, so my information comes from actually working in this industry and seeing actual data on our business.

I will quote some teacherly advice from my above post:

For me the move to digital has opened up creative opportunities. I directed a music video last year and I'm working on some new "motion" art projects. My friends and colleagues - folks that have made their living shooting for the likes of National Geo - are now doing full length documentaries along side of their stills work. I think it's fantastic.

If you want to spend your time arguing about film and digital, knock yourself out. I'm sure you'll let us know when you get to direct, or DP a film.

I have DP'd, twice, both were on digital rigs.

I wasn't really arguing film vs digital at all, I was clearing up some statements that seemed a little off.


"I believe the professional stats, but that's because most "professional photographers" do weddings et al. So yea, that makes sense."

?

I'm saying the majority of photographers making their entire living on Photography are wedding photographers. Which is the truth.

Some are successful journalist photographers others are photographers but also subsidize their living with other methods like teaching, but the majority who make their whole living from Photography are wedding photographers.

jnanian
31-May-2016, 09:21
from the us census bureau
15,000 commercial photographers work full time
the latest snapshot was compiled from 2012 data
3955 wedding photographers were doing weddings full time.

where you are getting your statistics ?
ppa, wpja, asmp's info don't back up your claim either.

StoneNYC
31-May-2016, 13:01
from the us census bureau
15,000 commercial photographers work full time
the latest snapshot was compiled from 2012 data
3955 wedding photographers were doing weddings full time.

where you are getting your statistics ?
ppa, wpja, asmp's info don't back up your claim either.

What were the rest doing?

jnanian
31-May-2016, 13:43
What were the rest doing?

it seems they weren't doing weddings ...



I'm saying the majority of photographers making their entire living on Photography are wedding photographers. Which is the truth.



where are you getting your data?
it might not be from a credible source.

Argentum
31-May-2016, 14:15
I have no idea what the stats are for wedding photographers or otherwise. However, I think its safe to say that the average person pretty much only ever uses paid for photographic services for personal family portraits and weddings. The average person in numbers far outweighs the number of businesses, fashion houses, media companies etc combined. Therefore it would seem to me to be a fairly safe bet to say that wedding photographers, numerically speaking, far outweigh any other type of potographers. Its a no brainer. But it also proves what? Absolutely nothing. There will be plenty of photo jounalists, product photographers, advertising photographers etc etc who make a decent living out of photography but they just happen to live in a much smaller market place than wedding photographers do. That doesn't mean the most reliable way to make a full time living out of photography is to do wedding photography. It just means there are more of them. So I fail to understand what the point being made is really about. If it's just that there are more wedding photographers than any other type then no surprise, there are more clients out there for wedding photography than anything else so 10 out 10 for stating the obvious. And it certainly doesn't mean than any photographer not doing wedding photography has to supplement their income with non photography work.

15000 full time photographers in the US seems like a low number and only 4000 wedding photographers seems really low. How many towns are there in the US. In the UK most towns have several wedding photographers depending in size of town. In the town I live in which has a population of 5000 we have two high street photographer shops doing wedding photography and numerous people listed in google as being wedding photographers. At a rough count there seems to be at least 20,000 towns in the US and possibly a lot more depending on exactly what you're counting. So I doubt the accuracy of the 4000 full time wedding photographers even allowing for very small towns.

don mishler
31-May-2016, 14:23
I wonder what kind of "special pricing" Kodak gave them to help promote this. I may not be their biggest customer but they have pretty well priced themselves out of the market as far as my B&W sheet film use goes ( I would like to know how much 8x10 Trix-x they are able to sell I'm a year)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jnanian
31-May-2016, 15:17
15000 full time photographers in the US seems like a low number and only 4000 wedding photographers seems really low. How many towns are there in the US. In the UK most towns have several wedding photographers depending in size of town. In the town I live in which has a population of 5000 we have two high street photographer shops doing wedding photography and numerous people listed in google as being wedding photographers. At a rough count there seems to be at least 20,000 towns in the US and possibly a lot more depending on exactly what you're counting. So I doubt the accuracy of the 4000 full time wedding photographers even allowing for very small towns.

hi argentum:

there are thousands of professional photographers who do
location/assignment/editorial/events/portrait/commercial - stuff
as well as brick/mortar portrait studios who do weddings ( on the side ),
they aren't included in the 4000 people...,
they're not doing weddings as their full time job/ making their entire living on Photography as wedding photographers. which is what i was pointing out.

if the census bureau is wrong i'd love to read the statistics &c that suggest otherwise ...

Argentum
31-May-2016, 15:26
but even the figure of 15000 for the whole of the US seeems very low to me. There must be hundreds of photographers in the bigger cities and dozens in the medium size towns of 10s of thousands. The stats are skewed IMO.

jnanian
31-May-2016, 15:51
but even the figure of 15000 for the whole of the US seeems very low to me. There must be hundreds of photographers in the bigger cities and dozens in the medium size towns of 10s of thousands. The stats are skewed IMO.

maybe ..
strangely enough that number given to me by the census bureau was nearly the same as the national company
that caters to professional photographers gave me. and they said it has been at about 15,000 for nearly 30 years.
maybe it seems low because "everyone with a camera thinks they are a photographer" &c.

StoneNYC
31-May-2016, 18:00
it seems they weren't doing weddings ...

*snip*

my POINT was, I said majority, if there are 15,000 photogs and 15 categories other than Weddings that all account for less than 4,000 in each category then weddings is still the MAJORITY, that's why I asked. If you don't know the other numbers then you don't have the full data and can't really draw legitimate conclusions.

I also agree with the Argentum who said the stats numbers seem very strange and might be somehow skewed.

That said let's not bicker, you know how we get.

To the Tri-X 8x10 question that's easy, Keith Canham does all the 8x10 special orders so he should have the exact number, but probably around 100-300 boxes / year is my guess.

Let's be glad it exists at all. I mean, everyone was complaining that Kodak hasn't been doing any film advertising at all, now that they are, you guys are all dumping on them for manipulating the info, just be happy they are touting film at all, look they even made a modern super 8 camera. Be happy for film and Kodak once!

Taija71A
31-May-2016, 19:14
... If you don't know the other numbers then you don't have the full data and can't really draw legitimate conclusions.


... To the Tri-X 8x10 question that's easy, Keith Canham does all the 8x10 special orders so he should have the exact number, but probably around 100-300 boxes / year is my guess.

It would 'appear' to me that it didn't take very long for:

"The Pot to (*perhaps once again) call the Kettle Black". (*Italics Added)...
--
Yes... K. B. Canham Cameras Inc. obviously has an an agreement with Kodak™ -- To sell 'Special Order' Kodak Sheet Film.

Question:

Does your 'GuessEstimate' (*Of say around 100-300 Boxes of Tri-X 8x10 Film)...
Take into 'consideration' ALL of the other Retailers -- That sell Kodak 8"x10" Tri-X Film (In 'Addition' to the KB Canham Special Order)?


http://www.adorama.com/KK416481010.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/533812-USA/Kodak_8179707_TXP_4164_8x10_Tri_X.html
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/8179707-Kodak-Tri-X-Pro-320-ISO-8x10-10-Sheets-TXP

You get the idea of course...

Please advise... Thank-you!
--

"If you don't know the other numbers then you don't have the full data and can't really draw legitimate conclusions."
('Straight from the Horse's Mouth').

Taija71A
31-May-2016, 20:58
...I believe the professional stats, but that's because most "professional photographers" do weddings et al. So yea, that makes sense.


?


from the us census bureau
15,000 commercial photographers work full time
the latest snapshot was compiled from 2012 data
3955 wedding photographers were doing weddings full time.

where you are getting your statistics ?
ppa, wpja, asmp's info don't back up your claim either.


What were the rest doing?

It would 'appear'... That both Kirk and John are definitely on to something here! :)
There is no 'rest' here (*Please correct me if I am wrong).
--
When 'Classifying' types of Professional Photographers (*As was most certainly the case in the 2012 US Census Bureau)...

Commercial Photographers and Wedding Photographers... Are distinctly 'Separate' entities.
I.e... 'Wedding Photography' is NOT a Subset Class of 'Commercial Photography'.

*You were either a 'Commercial' Photographer or you were a 'Wedding' Photographer.
--
Therefore, if I read these Statistics correctly; by a very large and 'considerable' margin...

More Professional Photographers (In the 2012 US Census Bureau) chose to 'Identify' themselves as...
Full Time 'Commercial' Photographers (15,000) -- Rather than as Full Time 'Wedding' Photographers (Only 3,955).

jnanian
1-Jun-2016, 04:01
my POINT was, I said majority, if there are 15,000 photogs and 15 categories other than Weddings that all account for less than 4,000 in each category then weddings is still the MAJORITY, that's why I asked. If you don't know the other numbers then you don't have the full data and can't really draw legitimate conclusions.

That said let's not bicker, you know how we get.


sorry stonenyc i am not bickering with you at all, you said something that doesn't make any sense

since you don't want to believe what i have said,
call the census bureau and the associations that cater to commerical and wedding photograpehrs.
ask them yourself.

as i asked before, where are you getting your information?

gotta go, this morning i'm processing some film and fixing it in baking soda ...

jnanian
1-Jun-2016, 04:05
It would 'appear'... That both Kirk and John are definitely on to something here! :)
There is no 'rest' here (*Please correct me if I am wrong).
--
When 'Classifying' types of Professional Photographers (*As was most certainly the case in the 2012 US Census Bureau)...

Commercial Photographers and Wedding Photographers... Are distinctly 'Separate' entities.
I.e... 'Wedding Photography' is NOT a Subset Class of 'Commercial Photography'.

*You were either a 'Commercial' Photographer or you were a 'Wedding' Photographer.
--
Therefore, if I read these Statistics correctly; by a very large and 'considerable' margin...

More Professional Photographers (In the 2012 US Census Bureau) chose to 'Identify' themselves as...
Full Time 'Commercial' Photographers (15,000) -- Rather than as Full Time 'Wedding' Photographers (Only 3,955).

no issue from me about anything you have said.
thanks for de-mystifying the information. :)


all this would make perfect sense if the professional statistics he was
referring to was "jeez everyone and his cousin does weddings on the weekend "

Randy Moe
1-Jun-2016, 04:22
I use Ken Rockwell's definition of 'Pro'. I also follow his advice. Sell nothing! Ken states in the link below. 'For decades I avoided selling even one print. The jump in my insurance rates would have made the sale of a few prints pointless.'

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/what-is-a-pro.htm

I am starving Artiste'! And damn proud of it. Worked all my life to gain the freedom of no 'Boss' and the time to 'play'!

jnanian
1-Jun-2016, 08:00
gotta go, this morning i'm processing some film and fixing it in baking soda ...

thank you for the flood of PMs ...

sorry i was joking. i should have bookended it with emoticons ..

Pfsor
2-Jun-2016, 05:53
We should be cheering "GO KODAK!"

Why? It's already largely gone anyway.

StoneNYC
2-Jun-2016, 18:51
I will correct my info, B&H orders Tri-X direct from Kodak for 8x10 because it sells at higher volumes (or B&H can buy it at higher volumes anyway). I thought K B Canham did that one but I guess not.

jnanian
2-Jun-2016, 19:18
never mind

Taija71A
2-Jun-2016, 19:57
You are correct John...

There is an Old Expression first recorded in Giovanni Torriano's Second Alphabet of 1662...
And it goes something like this: "To go about to fetch bloud out of stones, viz. to attempt what is impossible."

According to www.phrases.org.uk/ this means: "You cannot extract what isn't there to begin with."
--
We of course might all wish... That there were actually more FT Professional Wedding Photographers...
Or, that there 'Really' is a resurgence of Kodak Film.

But Lily Allen was correct... 'Never Gonna Happen.'
The 'Glory Days are Gone.' :(

jnanian
3-Jun-2016, 05:49
i know what you mean Taija71A
i had honestly hoped that he had some
sort of secret industry information
they only give people who are
in photography programs &c
to put me and the resources i
used to obtained my information from in our places
&c, benefit of the doubt and all that ..

TBH, i've been looking for a way to get to earth II ..
the situation is probably different there,
clients pay on time and are always nice ..
vp and trix, and custom cut pw a-plenty...

tgtaylor
3-Jun-2016, 07:20
"Resurgence" in the context of the thread's title, doesn't mean that film is resuming the place it enjoyed before digital photography came along in which it was the only game in town, but that it has turned it's downward trajectory around and found a niche where a major manufacturer of it, like Kodak (and others) can continue to manufacture it.

Thomas

Taija71A
3-Jun-2016, 07:41
You of course are correct. Very well stated. :)
Point well taken Thomas... Thank-you for bringing this 'oversight' to my attention!
--
Yes, we are all hoping that Major Manufacturer like Kodak (and others)...
Can continue to manufacture Film.

Kind Regards, -Tim.

Drew Wiley
3-Jun-2016, 09:00
I'm on Keith Canham's contact list for 8x10 film cuts. He apparently has a recurrent (annual) high-volume industrial user of 8x10 TMX100, then people like me get offered the few remaining leftover boxes. With TMY400, it's more a matter of cumulative demand from general shooters, and at what point in time a volume cut is anticipated. But this is a relatively popular product. 5x7 batch cuts of whatever obviously take longer to add up to the minimum quantity. Tri-X still has a following, but that might somehow demographically favor B&H stocking it on a regular basis. I'm personally in a state of shock at how the boxes of Kodak film in my own freezer have basically tripled in price in just a few years. So I meter my usage of 8x10 film, esp color, rather carefully. Otherwise, I shoot 4x5 more frequently, then figure out some way to add additional training weight to the day pack.

Randy Moe
3-Jun-2016, 09:20
I bought one 10 sheet box of 11x14 TMY 400 from Kieth.

Kodak took a year to deliver. Not Mr Canham's fault.

I am saving it for something...

Not cheap.

Andrew O'Neill
3-Jun-2016, 13:44
I'm personally in a state of shock at how the boxes of Kodak film in my own freezer have basically tripled in price in just a few years. So I meter my usage of 8x10 film, esp color, rather carefully. Otherwise, I shoot 4x5 more frequently, then figure out some way to add additional training weight to the day pack.

I find myself shooting more 4x5 TMY and Ilford HP5. 8x10 TMY? Forget it. I can just barely afford Ilford's 8x10. Spent $500 Cdn for three boxes of HP5 8x10. At least I can get 25 sheet boxes. Kodak is for the rich.

jnanian
4-Jun-2016, 07:44
yep, it seems kodak film is not cheap.
thankfully, its not the same high price of new55 film

... yet.

tgtaylor
4-Jun-2016, 09:41
If the turnaround in Kodak's motion picture film stabilizes and becomes permanent, Kodak may try to increase output by going after the still market with aggressive pricing.

Thomas

Randy Moe
4-Jun-2016, 15:43
Movie film is one thing, we do another. We print. Don't we?

Since Star Trek is topic of the day, let's try Spock analysis.

Which is more logical, especially ecologically logical.

A big factory, like Ilford makes sensitive print paper in vast quantities for use all around the world. High quality and is processed easily in almost pure water. Magic paper, low cost, easy to use.

Or do we make every person that wants to print, buy a tiny factory (Inkjet Printer of any size) and still need Ink with special paper. Where the special paper costs the same as the first choice.


I personally believe and can almost guarantee Inkjet printers and supplies are extremely wasteful and environmentally unsound.

I have 'recycled' 5 'ART' printers.:(



Somebody needs to invent one step prints....oops they did...

jnanian
4-Jun-2016, 18:27
If the turnaround in Kodak's motion picture film stabilizes and becomes permanent, Kodak may try to increase output by going after the still market with aggressive pricing.

Thomas

while i thnk it is great that more movies might
be made with kodak film, i doubt that will
have any effect on photographic film made
other than "building 38" being torn down
a little later later htan previously anticipated ...

Duolab123
10-Jun-2016, 18:14
Movie film is one thing, we do another. We print. Don't we?

Since Star Trek is topic of the day, let's try Spock analysis.

Which is more logical, especially ecologically logical.

A big factory, like Ilford makes sensitive print paper in vast quantities for use all around the world. High quality and is processed easily in almost pure water. Magic paper, low cost, easy to use.

Or do we make every person that wants to print, buy a tiny factory (Inkjet Printer of any size) and still need Ink with special paper. Where the special paper costs the same as the first choice.


I personally believe and can almost guarantee Inkjet printers and supplies are extremely wasteful and environmentally unsound.

I have 'recycled' 5 'ART' printers.:(



Somebody needs to invent one step prints....oops they did...

Man, You speak the truth! People worry about the shelf life of developers and papers. I will not buy another 8 or 9 cartridge printer. Talk about a waste of money! If I shoot digital, it's down to my photo shop for RA-4 prints.

This has always been my rub with digital. It makes print making a difficult process for me.

My darkroom is paid for, I love the process. I can make any size. The process is intuitive and very Human friendly. I'm not tied to a computer. My Black and White fiber prints won't fade, the ink doesn't run when it gets wet. .............

richardman
11-Jun-2016, 01:15
...and then there are those of us who love making 24x36"color prints :-)

StoneNYC
11-Jun-2016, 16:57
...and then there are those of us who love making 24x36"color prints :-)

Who have the full capability and funds ;)

Wish I could, let me know if you have a spare color processor that does at least 20x24 ;)

richardman
12-Jun-2016, 01:01
Wish I could, let me know if you have a spare color processor that does at least 20x24 ;)

I mean with inkjet printers ;-) I bought a used Epson 7900 for $1300. Not inexpensive but 1/3 the price comparing to new. As I am doing 3 portrait projects, being able to print up to 24x30" really helps.

jnanian
12-Jun-2016, 03:46
I mean with inkjet printers ;-) I bought a used Epson 7900 for $1300. Not inexpensive but 1/3 the price comparing to new. As I am doing 3 portrait projects, being able to print up to 24x30" really helps.

yup, olde epson printers are great to use for big prints .. i have a lab down the street, she has a NEW epson printer and does great and affordable prints too, considering the cost of inks, its cheaper to have my printer make them for me :)

Randy Moe
12-Jun-2016, 05:31
I admit I use Epson printers at Costco and their prices are very low, while they do up to 20x24" I only go to 16x20" as few have the wall space. Pricing is so low I don't get it. They still use wet print machines up to 8x10 and those prints are almost free.

I see 'Pros' acting all secretive when inspecting prints at Costco. I think they reject some on the spot. They unroll 20x24 and try to hide the image. Hilarious.

richardman
12-Jun-2016, 17:24
I see 'Pros' acting all secretive when inspecting prints at Costco. I think they reject some on the spot. They unroll 20x24 and try to hide the image. Hilarious.

Ha ha.

Duolab123
12-Jun-2016, 18:58
DevTec 20 x 24 tubes are still found used. I think I have at least 2. RA-4 is foolproof. But you got to have film though. I don't make many color prints that large.

EdSawyer
13-Jun-2016, 05:51
Fujimoto CP-51 will do 20" wide RA4 paper.

Drew Wiley
13-Jun-2016, 09:08
In one aspect, inkjet is genius, whether you're talking about office printers or allegedly fancier versions. They sell the machines cheap yet short-lived, then make
an utter killing on the inks and papers. It would be insanely profitable if it were not for the fact that just too many players are now in the game. But a remarkable quantity of R&D has gone into all this, and now we're going to see a relative plateau of technical image quality for quite awhile, as they coast on their patents. The tech mfg industry, esp chips, are anything but e-friendly. Everyone around here knows it. Lots and nasty chem involved. Then the overwhelming impact of all the throw-aways. I'm very skeptical the giant e-recycler down the street is legit - they're joined to an outfit that takes in truckloads of stolen copper every day, basically mafia-run (not much is anymore here, except hazmat and the ports). Short equipment lifespan and ink gluttony is all about the cumulative profits. But heck, there's a light bulb so well made that it has burned continuously in one of the local firehouses for over 110 years. After they sold a few bulbs to everyone, nobody bought more cause they didn't need to, and they soon went out of business. Go figure. But I prefer the look of real optical
enlargements anyway.

Randy Moe
13-Jun-2016, 09:31
I read the same light bulb thread today. You nearly quote it.

StoneNYC
13-Jun-2016, 15:44
I mean with inkjet printers ;-) I bought a used Epson 7900 for $1300. Not inexpensive but 1/3 the price comparing to new. As I am doing 3 portrait projects, being able to print up to 24x30" really helps.

I really prefer a C-Print, all mine are Lambda / LightJet color prints.

Thanks though, someday.

richardman
13-Jun-2016, 15:59
Of course "optical" prints are better in some ways. Different strokes for different folks.

As for cost, for the amount of 20x24" and 24x30" prints I have made, they would have cost much more than the $1300 and the ink/paper I paid for the printer - not that I made any meaningful amount of money off the prints, but that's another story. The trick is to buy printer that takes larger tanks, e.g. the 7900 takes up to 300ml cartridges.

Again, if you are happy with darkroom prints, be it B&W or colors, more power to you!

jnanian
13-Jun-2016, 18:27
just heard back this afternoon from a company that
caters to professional portrait and wedding photographers
they confirmed the numbers that the census bureau and
other organization gave me ...

its been a couple of weeks stonenyc, can you reveal
who your professional statistics came from ??

tgtaylor
13-Jun-2016, 18:37
An example of a color negative home printed with a Jobo using the RA-4 process:

http://spiritsofsilver.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Prayers.79141554_large.jpg

From the field notes:

15 APRIL 2016:

Note on image #10 (A Prayer) in the Chromogenic C-Print Gallery:

This was a very long exposure on Fuji Reala in a fairly large and dimly-lit Greek Orthodox church. The photographer that accompanied me sat quietly in a pew and made no move to photograph with his camera as if the ambiance of the place was overwhelming to the point that he could only sit motionless in it. Off to a side sat a priest counseling with a parishioner in low muffled tones that were unintelligible to an on-hearer. I stood motionless next to the camera waiting for the shutter to close fully expecting a door to open, someone to stand and move about - surely a ripple to develop in the air - to disturb the flame of the candle frozen perfectly still in space. But it never happened.

Thomas

Taija71A
13-Jun-2016, 20:22
I will correct my info... I thought K B Canham did that one but I guess not.

I am sincerely afraid... That your information is still not quite correct.
--
Kodak™ Sheet Film.
"The current emulsions available from Kodak™ are:
Portra 160, Portra 400, Tri-X 320, Tri-X 400, T-Max 100, T-Max 400 and Ektar 100."

http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html
--
Thank-you! -Tim.

StoneNYC
16-Jun-2016, 16:04
I am sincerely afraid... That your information is still not quite correct.
--
Kodak[emoji769] Sheet Film.
"The current emulsions available from Kodak[emoji769] are:
Portra 160, Portra 400, Tri-X 320, Tri-X 400, T-Max 100, T-Max 400 and Ektar 100."

http://www.canhamcameras.com/kodakfilm.html
--
Thank-you! -Tim.

Yes it says "from Kodak"

Keith told me personally that because B&H orders such a large quantity themselves he doesn't need to organize a group buy for Tri-X. So unless Keith lied to me, my info is directly from the horses mouth.

Let's bring the positivity up on this thread instead of trying to knock people down. Let's make it a welcome environment.