Film photography, a good business in the future ?

[Greg Lockrey]

Doesn't affect my commercial business at all, but it sure as hell might impact my b&w personal photography!

You could always learn to make your own coatings and continue from there. If it ever gets that bad.... Think of the marketing tool that would derive.

[toyotadesigner]

<snip> one of the real issues with the film photography business is the use and disposal of chemicals for both manufacturing and processing of film <snip>

But the production of plastic doesn't pollute the environment? The garbage will end up in the landfills somewhere. I'm only waiting for a smart politician to impose a plastic tax on all products from Far East. In Europe such a tax is currently in consideration, which I think is a good development.

[dwross]

Apparently Perez is trying to do what Nokia did. Nokia used to be a logging company. However, Nokia changed when technologies were young and markets were undeveloped. Kodak is trying to change when technologies are ubiquitous and markets are saturated with competition. Why buy a cheap point-and-shoot from Kodak when your cell phone has a camera and there's choices from at least five other competitors?

OK, so back to the topic for this thread (Kodak business thread here), film photography is an attraction factor for a photography business.

Besides esthetic process, there is also the very real measurable effect of the final product. Using a small film format, such as half-frame or Minox, results in real grain. The larger formats render grainless images, and can be used with real alternate processes. In the possible event of a total demise of film, there's hand coating glass plates, which is an effective business model now.

There is a selling point to a 100% optical-chemical image path. Use what you have to make an effective business. Find the profitable niche, fill it, and advertise it.

Totally agree. I can't help myself from adding one more point, though. We are not limited to glass plates. Handmade film is even easier to make and handles just like commercial. In addition, I don't see any real danger of the constituent ingredients disappearing anytime soon. I'm a bit more concerned (and that's not much) that some of the digital photo equipment will follow the same kind of trajectory that audio has followed. All your grandma's music on tape? Ouch.

The attached images were photographed with a Baby Graphic (2-1/4" x 3-1/4") on handcoated sheet film.

Denise
www.thelightfarm.com

[Brian Ellis]

Aha? What about Cambo, Mamiya, Fuji, Linhof, Arca Swiss, Silvestri, Tachihara, Horseman, Ebony, Canham, Gottschalt, Plaubel, Gaoersi, and several others?

Seems you don't know how long you have to wait for an Arca Swiss or Ebony or Linhof or Cambo or...

They still make cameras, in most cases with two options: with a Graflok back or an adaptor for digital backs. The majority of the cameras however is sold for film backs.

In this particular context I remember the wise guys back in 2001, when they claimed that film is dead. Since that time Kodak and Fuji have developed new emulsions, and we have seen new film manufacturers entering the market (for b&w).

Obviously you prefer to hide many facts on the film side.

By "major" I meant in terms of sales volume - Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, et al, companies that used to make 35mm cameras and don't any longer (except for Nikon's F6). AFAIK the companies you mention aren't public companies so they don't make their financial information public. But I doubt that their combined annual sales equal one day's sales by Nikon or Canon.

Waiting periods don't necessarily mean a business is prospering. They may mean the company has cut personnel to the bare bones and so it takes them a long time to fill orders. Or it can mean they have cash flow problems and suppliers have cut off their credit so they can buy supplies only when they have orders and money in hand. I'm not saying that's the case with any of the companies you mention. I'm just pointing out that waiting periods aren't necessarily a sign that a company is doing well.

I never said film is dead. I think there are enough 35mm film cameras out there to support somebody making some kind of 35mm film for quite a while. And as long as there's 35mm film there will probably be at least one LF film. What it will cost, where it can be bought, how it will be processed, etc., those are all open questions. But I don't think film is "dead" or going to be dead any time soon.

I don't know how you think I'd be in a position to hide anything "on the film side." I don't possess any information that anyone else can't find.

[Jay DeFehr]

According to a graph I saw recently (linked by Marko), it seems the number of film-made photos at present is around 1960s levels, and dropping precipitously. The progress of film-made photos has effectively gone into rapid-reverse, so that in today's market some manufacturers, technologies and products that were viable in the 60s are viable again, and we're looking forward to looking back even further, to coating simple emulsions at home, or using WPC. Fascinating!

[cyrus]

Totally agree. I can't help myself from adding one more point, though. We are not limited to glass plates. Handmade film is even easier to make and handles just like commercial.
www.thelightfarm.com

Just wanted to say that you're my hero!

[Greg Lockrey]

But the production of plastic doesn't pollute the environment? The garbage will end up in the landfills somewhere. I'm only waiting for a smart politician to impose a plastic tax on all products from Far East. In Europe such a tax is currently in consideration, which I think is a good development.

I used to work for a company that made plastics for the electrical and computer industry, Plaskon Products formally Allied Chemical. They are very specialized high dielectric strength plastic composing of 98% paper pulp 1% sheep's piss (amino in man-made version) and total of 1% inert additives like sand and formaldehyde to be used in computer chips. The technical name for this product was Amino Molding Compound. The point is that all three are naturally originating chemicals just through combining process with heat and pressure they become "plastic".

I also owned a custom photo lab in the city of Toledo, Oh who on a regular routine would make sure that I disposed of my chemicals in hazardous waste drums and I had to pay extra for those to be correctly collected and disposed of.... the very same chemicals that any amateur could buy at the local camera store and dump down the drain.

[David Luttmann]

Jeez, that is scary. With those kind of numbers, I see Kodak dumping film sooner rather than later.

I have to agree there. And I agree with a lot of what you say about the professional being the whole package. My reference went simply to what attracts the publics attention.

Oh, and a great interview by the way.

[Kirk Gittings]

Thanks David. Nice to see your professional website these days. Looks like its going well for you.

[rdenney]

Aha? What about Cambo, Mamiya, Fuji, Linhof, Arca Swiss, Silvestri, Tachihara, Horseman, Ebony, Canham, Gottschalt, Plaubel, Gaoersi, and several others?

It's much easier to build a niche business around cameras than around film, especially with the production model of a Kodak or Fuji. I'll bet the combined production of all the film cameras produced by the above in the last five years, if used every day, could not keep one film line going at Kodak.

There is a difference between impressing bystanders and impressing clients, too. Most clients are impressed when people show up with lighting equipment, cameras in durable and experienced cases, beefy tripods, and confidence in the correct use of the above. After all that other stuff is added up, the black lump at the top of the tripod isn't that big a deal. I've had more "you must be a pro" comments carrying around my 5D with a white-barreled lens and a Bogen 3036 than when setting up my Sinar. With the Sinar, people don't think I'm a pro. They think I'm an artist.

And I don't think "good business" is the right question, but rather "good living". As in the now-archaic question from my parents' generation: Is there a living in that?

There is probably some marketing advantage to the whole handmade process for selling prints at a craft show. But I doubt that people buying photography because they want pictures (as opposed to wanting art) care, and I doubt people buying stuff because it is Important Art care. So, maybe it matters in the middle a bit. Is there a living in that? Not if the supplies dry up, no matter how good the photographer markets the "traditional handmade" aspect.

There are people who hate digital technology who are not photographers. But they still don't know what they are looking at. I showed a photo to the wife of a friend, and she said, "You just can't make good photos like that with a digital camera." I'd made it with my 5D, of course. She was conflating big, black SLR with film, and cigarette-pack sized point-n-shoot with digital. What made the print look good to her was that it was done properly.

And most of the arguments I see against digital apply equally to film--the latest film cameras made for the last couple of decades have nearly the same level of automation as a digital camera. There is not much operational difference between my Canon Elan II and my Canon 10D--or my 5D. The Uncle Harrys of the world can hide their lack of technique equally using the automation of the Elan as with the 10D.

As to data storage vs. film storage--that's not much of an influence on the "Is there a living in that?" question. I did a wedding last weekend, and gave the film or digital choice to the bride and groom. DIGITAL! Why? They wanted to share the pictures with their friends on Facebook, etc., easily. (Brian K had it right: The product delivery drives the choice of equipment.) The model of the photographer owning the images and making money on the enlargements is long gone in the lower rungs of professional photography, it seems to me. You provide a Blurb book and a DVD now, and leave the archival permanence question to the newlyweds. The last wedding I shot on film, despite always offering that choice, was six years ago.

But I don't shoot very many weddings compared to years ago. I used to show up with a Mamiya C330 and a potato-masher flash, and in those days that was seen as professional equipment. Now, it would probably attract stares. Put your 5D in a Newton bracket or Stroboframe with a coiled cord from the camera to the flash, and you're more pro than most people can conceive, if they are only measuring on appearance. Methinks Kirk's clients are making their judgements with a little more sophistication, such as with what they saw in his portfolio and in his demeanor.

Sorry for the rambling answer, but I just read the whole thread at once and my head is exploding.

Rick "thinking those who extol the virtues of film had better be able to point to prints that demonstrate those virtues, if they are going to make a living based on that schtick--and they had better buy Kodak stock, too, and lots of it" Denney