Film Making and Processing Technology in the Future?

[Anthony Lewis]

Quote:
"I think the biggest threat to traditional materials is this "environmentally friendly" movement. That's the real wild card. Incandescent bulbs - they kind that are used in darkroom enlarger - are being banned in the European Union. Its harder to get chemicals even in the U.S. due to goverment regulation. This is where the threat lies."

I find it strange that there is a perception that film is not environmentally friendly - and it's a perception that we all should turn on its head.

To me all digital technology is an environmental disaster. Every digital camera bought today will be replaced within 5 years - superceded or whatever. Your LCD computer screen will be worn out in five years, today's computers won't have the speed or memory for the software that's produced in five years, your inkjet printer will be lucky to make 5 years.

If you should digital, then your entire capital investment in your hobby; you will be repetitively spending every five years - except for lights and tripod! Even your lenses may not survive, as new sensor sizes are introduced.

I could not do this to my family (constantly spending that sort of money), or the environment - constantly replacing gear. All my film gear will last to the day I die. If you are young and starting down the film road, then you are looking at replacing your film gear 2 or 3 times in your life - not 10 or 20 times with digital.

As for film itself - Remember this is our archival medium that will last a couple of hundred years. Digital has not even got an archival medium - again whatever media you now use, CD's...., you will be re-digitising about every decade. What a waste and who is actually going to do it?

I believe that the few, and relatively harmless chemicals, that we use for film processing hardly compares with the complete re-capitalisation of an entire industry every 5 years or so. This constant renewal has to be unsustainably.

Our digital manufacturers have won the lottery with this constant renewal, and the populace has been conned - all to make our manufacturers rich, and the environment poorer.

If you want to be 'green friendly' then shoot film.

[Gene McCluney]

My Wal-Mart Supercenter says they will stop processing film locally by end of year.

[BetterSense]

All my film gear will last to the day I die.

I don't think I have a single camera that is younger than I am, in any format. All my stuff has already lasted someone else his lifetime.

[Sevo]

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?

Efke is small, Lucky is not - they have almost a third of the world population as a home market. On the other hand, Kodak has or had many product lines which were smaller than the Efke scale of operation.

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?

Parts of the film chemistry are trade secrets rather than patents - that could affect high speed and T-grain films, if Kodak or Fuji were to stop production without selling the process or (if there is no buyer) disclosing it before that knowledge is lost. But in general everything can be done small scale - the real question is whether it can be done on a older, smaller scale production line, or whether they'd have to build a new one for the purpose and whether the latter would be profitable.

[Robert Hughes]

Can't Kodak or whomever continue to make T-grain emulsions, and make them available for sale as bulk chemicals?

[Wallace_Billingham]

I really don't see even the general public going for inkjet prints over the long haul.

Remember, what is the first thing people save when their neighborhood catches fire?

Photographs.

I just don't see anyone dashing through their burning house to save an inkjet print.

The general public does not care or even know the difference. To them that picture of Grandma printed at Wal-Mart is the same now that it is printed with an inkjet as it was 5 years ago when it was printed with real photo paper. These same people have seen color negatives and color prints fade beyond belief to the point where there memories from the 1970s and 1980s are now gone.

Every digital camera bought today will be replaced within 5 years

Doubtful, many people shoot with digital cameras right now that are more than 5 years old. I have several. My Canon 300D is 7 years old and still works evevry bit as good as the day I got it, it did not stop working or burst into flames when a new model came out. My Canon 30D is now 4 years old and I will more than likely not replace it in the next 5 unless I break it. I also got my 30D not to replace my 300D but because I wanted a second DSLR body.

Digital cameras have evolved to the point where they effectively replace 35mm film for most users so why would they want to upgrade 5 years from now when they never make anything bigger than 8x10 or 11x14 prints of little Johnny's birthday party? I use my DSLRs exactly like I used to shoot 35mm film. It really is not a film -vs- digital debate for small format. I enjoy shooting with my medium and large format gear on film much more than I ever enjoyed playing with 35mm.

My guess is that there will be far more film cameras heading to landfills over the next 5years than there will be digital ones as the casual users who drive 99% of all camera sales dump their film cameras forever.

[J Ney]

Kind of an interesting aside... if film does disappear from the wider markets, do you think 35mm will be the first to go?? I can easily see 35mm going obsolete before anything else with the signficiant strides made in the digi world.

[BetterSense]

If the current situation is any indication, 35mm will be the last to go. There is still a far wider selection of films in 35mm than any other format. The larger the format, the fewer the film choices. It would take a lot, I think, to reverse this trend.

[J Ney]

It just seems like the potential for market drop-off is much greater in the 35mm world with digi cameras becoming the norm. Can't see much of a threat to the Large Format market. The market is not as great but I would bet it is more steady than 35mm. But I know what you're saying... 35mm may be able to absorb the loss to digital.

[bigdog]

I can see the ceiling dropping so that films are roughly 1970s level of quality, ...

Yeah, film was really crap way back then ...