Film Making and Processing Technology in the Future?

[Frank Petronio]

I really don't know anything about coating machines or chemical engineering, but (and this is a thought pulled from the "Kodak vs. Ilford" thread) as film production inevitably declines, what sorts of film, paper, and chemistry products are going to lend themselves to small-scale boutique manufacturing?

I'm assuming that once Kodak and Fuji give up on film making that they might sell their technology inexpensively to a group of employees or perhaps benefactor with deep pockets (like Leica was fortunate enough to find). But the scale of Kodak's film operation is massive, and no sane investors would want to buy their giant machinery.

So what will be left? I can see where some smaller manufacturers like Efke, Lucky, etc. might be able to keep some lines open but what do you think? I'm assuming old style B&W (Tri-X, FP-4, etc.) should be doable on a smaller scale, but what about T-grain B&W and Color Neg? (Who cares about E-6 anyway?) And what about chemistry -- while traditional B&W chemistry should be do-able forever, is color chemistry going to be difficult to make in smaller batches? How much of the technology is proprietary?

Ultimately will people have to handcoat papers with silver emulsions like Platinum printers do today?

How do you see it going over the next 20-30 years? I read that Kodak is committed to film through 2015 but that could well be it, depending on demand.

[ki6mf]

Well those still in the market are still making money on their products. And that means film is not going away in the near future. The interesting thing to watch is where fine arts photographers will go. I do see film classes being pretty popular and that bodes well for both B&W and color print and film sales. There is still a commercial side to film that is driving the market. A good test will be how prices on the used market for medium format and large format gear holds up. Today to buy a Pentax V in good condition you pay what they cost new 30 years ago! I check the price of mine several times yearly! Hopefully this trend will continue.

[Gene McCluney]

Those of us who continue to use large format E-6 for its benefits in our commercial work certainly DO CARE ABOUT E-6.

[Gordon Moat]

I know a great deal about coatings, through paper mills and the printing industry. Easiest are single coatings, and complexity only increases with each coating. I also acted as a liaison for a paper company that was bidding on producing backing paper for roll film, due to a temporary shortage a few years ago, but that is another story best left for another time.

Many paper mills with coating facilities could do film or photographic paper runs with only a few modifications. Thus there could be contract runs. On a related view, the coating machinery at Kodak or Fuji could be partially used for paper coating.

The toughest aspect is that the larger the run, then the greater the requirement for efficiency, due to the costs involved. In order to maintain an affordable product run, while avoiding quality issues, efficiency is vastly important. The average paper machine takes $15K per hour to run, and needs at least 98% efficiency to maintain profitability.

The one part I see continuing for a long time is RA4 paper. It is simply better continuous tone, dry out of the machine, and very profitable for photo finishing. I don't see people giving up prints, nor giving up framed images, nor scrapbooks, despite some LCD display technology advances. An extreme way to look at that would be loading RA4 paper into a large format camera, and taking shots that way, but I do not see that being necessary in my lifetime.

If a multi-shot 4x5 imaging chip comes along, that does not need a computer attached, runs two days on battery before recharge, can handle 1/500th second to 30 minutes exposures, and costs under $500 in 2009 Dollars, then I don't care if 4x5 film disappears. Maybe that can happen, but I think it might be many years until anything even close to that appears, and several more years than that until the price point drops to an easily attainable level.

Toughest thing for me now would be for E-6 to go away, because it makes editing colour images from a shoot so easy. I currently have no C-41 4x5 processing anywhere near me, and I still need to shoot in colour. I could see B/W films around longer, since they are easier to make, but my current style of shooting rarely makes use of B/W images. More than availability, I think turnaround time for processing and potential large increases in expense would be the things driving me away from film. At the moment it is more profitable for me to shoot film, since I incorporate all film and processing costs into my invoices, though I could imagine complaints if those costs became 10x higher than they are now.

Both Kodak and Fuji would be in trouble if either sold their film operations. They are responsible for a great percentage of revenue at both companies, and they are profitable operations. Neither company has anything that generates as high a profit margin (yet), and to loose that revenue would vastly put into question their market capitalization levels. Without either company replacing that revenue through new technology, they would risk collapsing their stock, or possibly risking delisting from their respective markets.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[Gene McCluney]

The one part I see continuing for a long time is RA4 paper. It is simply better continuous tone, dry out of the machine, and very profitable for photo finishing. I don't see people giving up prints, nor giving up framed images, nor scrapbooks, despite some LCD display technology advances. An extreme way to look at that would be loading RA4 paper into a large format camera, and taking shots that way, but I do not see that being necessary in my lifetime.


Gordon Moat Photography

Gordon, I don't know if you have noticed or not, but most of the Fuji Frontier type 1 hour lab installations have gone to an inkjet technology print for their 3x5 and 4x6 product now. The new Fuji Frontier machines do not use RA-4 anymore. This may not bode well for RA-4 paper.

[BetterSense]

If a multi-shot 4x5 imaging chip comes along, that does not need a computer attached, runs two days on battery before recharge, can handle 1/500th second to 30 minutes exposures, and costs under $500 in 2009 Dollars, then I don't care if 4x5 film disappears.

I understand your sentiments very well, but there are many of us that don't use film simply because digital hasn't gotten "good enough yet". When somebody makes an 8x10 digital camera that costs $5, I still won't care. Digital can never be film so there will always be demand for it.

In the far future (50 years) I forsee the market for film narrowing greatly, I can see the ceiling dropping so that films are roughly 1970s level of quality, and I can see E6 going away, sadly. But I don't think it will ever completely go away because it's a good technology with a niche. It's not just another way to do things.

In 2009, you can still get vinyl records pressed and buy new ones, very many actually with a good selection. But you can't get 8-tracks anymore, because nobody wants 8-tracks anyway; they never liked them when they were new. I don't feel that film is an "8-track" technology that will completely get the "good riddance" treatment. I think it's a "vinyl record" technology that will still be cherished and valued even as the masses move on to more convenient and cheaper things.

[Gem Singer]

I just Googled "buggy whips" and, lo and behold, there are manufacturers and repairers of buggy whips who are still in business today.

Film will not go away until nobody uses it anymore.

As long as there are customers and money to be made, someone will make it and offer it for sale.

[Gordon Moat]

Gordon, I don't know if you have noticed or not, but most of the Fuji Frontier type 1 hour lab installations have gone to an inkjet technology print for their 3x5 and 4x6 product now. The new Fuji Frontier machines do not use RA-4 anymore. This may not bode well for RA-4 paper.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/photofinishing/

So far one new machine. The lab I use for most of my work seems to think it will be a while until that type of machine is more profitable. There are advantages for some places to use such a machine, but I think it will be some time until that technology would replace RA-4. What I think has a better chance is thermal printing, or perhaps a solvent or UV cured ink system, but also a long way off from being affordable and profitable.

[Gordon Moat]

I understand your sentiments very well, but there are many of us that don't use film simply because digital hasn't gotten "good enough yet". When somebody makes an 8x10 digital camera that costs $5, I still won't care. Digital can never be film so there will always be demand for it.

. . . . . . .

I choose film as a creative choice, in that the film I use represent colour palettes that I want to represent in my final images. My two films of choice in 4x5 are Fuji Astia 100F and Kodak E100VS. I would hate to see either disappear from the market. If that did happen, I would try to find another film alternative prior to using a direct digital capture and post processing alternative.

I would rather spend time behind a camera (or beside one), than time in front of a computer. Currently I spend more time in meetings, planning, and doing paperwork, but such is the life of commercial photography. I have over 14 years Photoshop experience, yet I prefer to use film and produce as much of my shots as possible in-camera.

So I hope that conveys that I am partial to using film. A simple reality is that if the situation developed to the point that it was extremely difficult to do my work, and deliver final files in a timely manner, then at some point in the future I may have no better option than digital capture. I am quite ready for it, but I am in absolutely no hurry to stop using film.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[BetterSense]

What I think has a better chance is thermal printing

The latest IEEE Spectrum magazine has an article about Zink, the thermal printing technology originally concieved in Polaroid's labs. It's a digital process that uses ful-color thermal paper and no ink or chemicals. It's currently available in small sizes for about .30/sheet, still to much to compete with RA4 on a large scale, but you can get digital cameras with builtin zink printers now. I think this will first take over inkjet in the home printing market; its advantages over inkjet are greater than its advantages over RA4.