The End of Forte :-(((

[Laj]

Hi Evryone!

I am usually only read your posts but today I thought i have somesthing to say, so here it is...

Yesterday, on Valentine's Day (14. 02. 2007.) – how ironic – an old and legendary photochemical company closed down – Forte Photochemical Company, Vác, Hungary. That was the day for a factory tour called ´Forte forever - the last packaging´ for anybody interested (unfortunately I could not be there). They were selling the last limited number of boxes with special stamp on it „Forte Forever – Az utolsó kiszerelés – 2007. február 14.” which in English is something like „Forte Forever – the last packaging – 14. February 2007.”. The company was founded 1922 by Kodak who owned it until 1947 when a Hungarian bank bought it. The film, paper and chemical recipes hasn't changed much over time and they were based on the old classical Kodak formulas until this day. There were times when Forte produced 3.5 million square meters of photo paper and 1 million square meter of film a year. There are words floating around about some investors but the chances are very very vague in my opinion. You can read an article on this on www.hg.hu (http://www.hg.hu/cikk/forte_finir&pageIdx=1) , (only in Hungarian, anyway I told the essence of it already for you in English). I attached a few pictures for you all, more picture can be found on the following link: Forte Pictures. (http://www.hg.hu/?hg3=kepgaleria&id=2772&tipus=2&kid=1909) Well, not much to say...

Pictures' copyright is unknown for me but taken from www.hg.hu.

Originally posted on my blog (http://dodolle.blogspot.com/).

[Brian Ellis]

Thanks, even for someone like me who is moving more and more to digital it's sad to see these old line companies go down the tubes. There really is no photography industry as such any more, the big companies are mostly either gone like Agfa or are switching to digital like Kodak, the little cottage industry companies have disappeared. "Photography" is now a sub-set of the home entertainment or electronics industry. It's hard to believe today but when I first became involved with photography as a teenager I bought my darkroom supplies at the local drugstore.

[PViapiano]

"Photography" is now a sub-set of the home entertainment or electronics industry.

The saddest part of the whole thing is the concept that the camera you bought last year needs to be replaced and updated this year.

[Mike Chini]

I too shoot mostly digital nowadays but have a great darkroom and have always wanted to eventually go back to shooting film. I have many fond memories of being in the darkroom with some good tunes playing and it is sad to see it all disappear so quickly. This only makes me want to shoot film more.

[Michael Alpert]

it is sad to see it all disappear so quickly


Let's not overstate the situation. I don't see it ALL disappearing. In fact, it is pretty easy to work as a large-format photographer. With a bit of effort, anyone can find needed supplies that are of terrific quality. (In less "developed" countries, it takes more effort, as it always has.) The smaller companies make fine products, so film-based photography is not disappearing; it is adapting as a more specialized field. I think these Internet forums, along with digital-company advertising, sometimes give a false impression. I just finished reading Todd Webb's journal: finding film and other supplies in the late 1940s was much harder than today, and he was in Manhattan. As far as I am concerned, we really have nothing to complain about.

[Mike Chini]

Michael-

You are correct. There are plenty of materials out there as of now and I have a known tendency for hyperbole! Still, it is sad so much of it is disappearing including some of my preferred materials, AZO, Fortezo and the older Kodak printing papers.

[paulr]

The saddest part of the whole thing is the concept that the camera you bought last year needs to be replaced and updated this year.

Or the paper you used last year (and had to learn how to use) being replaced by a new one this year. Sadly, this has been the whole history of the medium ... photographers getting attached to a tool or material or process, only to have it pulled out from under them in the name of technological change. My teachers were crying when the original Portriga got "improved". Weston cried when commercial platinum papers vanished. I cried when Forte closed down (the first time, a few years ago ... this time i was prepared for it).

It's silly to think that inevitable obsolescence (of tools and knowledge to use them) was somehow invented by the digital world. The rapid pace of change is happening because we're on a technological upswing ... the early stages when new ideas follow right on the heels of the last ones. It's frustrating, but probably better to on an upswing than a downswing. When a digital widget or material is made obsolete, it's because something better or cheaper has come along. When a factory like Forte goes under, it's just lost. There's no better/cheaper silver paper being introduced to replace it. And in fact any remaining paper that can compete with it is in danger of vanishing too, which makes me hesitant to invest in learning to use it.

Seems like we're on the same frustrating roller coaster we've always been on. It comes from relying on a technological medium, which photography has been since the start.

[Marko]

The saddest part of the whole thing is the concept that the camera you bought last year needs to be replaced and updated this year.

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand why would you need to replace a last year's camera?

My seven-year old Canon D30 is still working perfectly fine. I got another Canon, this time an 8 MP, but because I wanted to, not because I had to.

[Ed Richards]

Yea, like LF photographers never change equipment.:-)

[GPS]

I look at it from a different angle. I look at the myriad of Fotoman's cameras, the new (not yet born but conceived) hand held Arca Swiss cameras, the multiplying Alpa camera types and I see the there are industrial heads that believe in film photography as the way to do business now and in future. Enough of camera types to choose from - and what was not there I made myself for my own needs. Eh, what a great time we live in!

[Ted Harris]

GPS the handheld Arca is very much alive and kicking ... I had onein my hands at Photo Plus Expo in November.

[John Kasaian]

There is no denying that the photo industry is changing but then it always has been. I'll miss Forte and Agfa just like in earlier times people mourned the passing of Goerz, Ilex, DuPont, Graflex, Ansco, etc.... What is far more tragic is that workers had to loose jobs. Thats a far more bigger deal than any of us having to switch to a different film or paper.

[davidb]

So does Forte make Bergger products?

[Gene McCluney]

So does Forte make Bergger products?

I think it is common knowledge that many Forte products were also sold under the Bergger brand, as well as Bergger had some products that Forte did not sell themselves. I believe Forte was the primary supplier for Bergger. Bergger has stated they have enough stock to last a while, during the time they get their resources together to have product made elsewhere. They are also part of a consortium that may be attempting to acquire parts of Forte.

[Laj]

So does Forte make Bergger products?

Yes, Bergger sold Fortepan film under its brand, but I don't know (think) that Bergger's full product line was made by forte. The news said that the French Bergger and the German FilmoTec was/are interested investing in Forte. Anyway, two days ago the whole production came to a halt so chances are very low.

[GPS]

GPS the handheld Arca is very much alive and kicking ... I had onein my hands at Photo Plus Expo in November.

It was a prototype, the thing is not in production yet. Never mind, I'm patient.

[Brian Ellis]

There is no denying that the photo industry is changing but then it always has been. I'll miss Forte and Agfa just like in earlier times people mourned the passing of Goerz, Ilex, DuPont, Graflex, Ansco, etc.... What is far more tragic is that workers had to loose jobs. Thats a far more bigger deal than any of us having to switch to a different film or paper.

My comment wasn't directed at the industry "changing" because I don't think the industry is simply "changing," the industry as a major force in the lives of millions of people is disappearing. Back when duPont dropped its papers there were plenty of other paper manufacturers around to fill whatever gap was left. That's not the case today. When a manufacturer such as Agfa or Forte goes out of business no new companies are stepping up to take their place. When Heico stops making its wash aid no new little companies are bringing a different kind of wash aid to the market. When your local camera store or wet lab goes out of business nobody is opening up new local stores or new labs to replace them.

I wasn't suggesting that all traditional materials will necessarily disappear, I don't get into those debates because I can't predict the future. I was just saying that I find it sad to see an entire industry, especially one that has been an integral part of the lives of millions and millions of people over the last century or so, disappearing.

[kmgibbs]

If one studies the history of photography, it is very clear that the introduction and obsolescence of both materials and processes has been an issue from the beginning. It is remarkable how many processes in the early years only lasted a handful of years before being supplanted by a 'newer, easier, more archival' process. Today is no different. Like it or not, digital will and is replacing film in all but a handful of specialist areas. Does this mean film will disappear? Not necessarily. But it will continue to contract until it reaches some equilibrium. It may very well become the next alt process.

After the Russian revolution, platinum became very scarce and expensive. Many of the photographers who printed in this medium exclusively simply quit photography all together and moved on. Some moved to palladium and continued to work. Others moved to still other processes. Photography survived. And it will survive this technological move as well.

Kent

[Gene McCluney]

It is remarkable how many processes in the early years only lasted a handful of years before being supplanted by a 'newer, easier, more archival' process. Today is no different. Like it or not, digital will and is replacing film in all but a handful of specialist areas.
Kent

As far as archival goes..some digital printing processes may possess archival qualities, but in the preservation of the original file as captured by the camera, digital is waaay down on the list of being an archival medium. I wonder if my digital files will even be readable in 10 years. The prints will be OK, but what is important is the original digital negative (so to speak).

[kjsphotography]

As far as archival goes..some digital printing processes may possess archival qualities, but in the preservation of the original file as captured by the camera, digital is waaay down on the list of being an archival medium. I wonder if my digital files will even be readable in 10 years. The prints will be OK, but what is important is the original digital negative (so to speak).

That is why it is imperative that we all still shoot film to keep alive or the memories / documents we take will be gone, never to be seen again.

[kmgibbs]

As far as archival goes..some digital printing processes may possess archival qualities, but in the preservation of the original file as captured by the camera, digital is waaay down on the list of being an archival medium. I wonder if my digital files will even be readable in 10 years. The prints will be OK, but what is important is the original digital negative (so to speak).

As I understand it, some organizations that are concerned about the transitory nature of digital (ie. the National Archives, Library of Congress and such) have decided that the only way to guarantee the future readability of digital information is to have a hard copy of the data. I believe the venerable computer punch card is making a return as well.

It's been suggested that all digital photographs be printed in an archival medium and placed in dark, cold storage as a means to preserve the images.

Kent

[Emrehan Zeybekoglu]

Yes, it's sad to see a company that you've grown up with fold up the tent. However, there is no need for despair. Just as the invention of the 35mm camera did not bring the end of what we today call the large format camera, the development of digital media probably will not terminate film-based photography. Furthermore, this may be more true in the case of LF. Happy shooting..

[John Kasaian]

My comment wasn't directed at the industry "changing" because I don't think the industry is simply "changing," the industry as a major force in the lives of millions of people is disappearing. Back when duPont dropped its papers there were plenty of other paper manufacturers around to fill whatever gap was left. That's not the case today. When a manufacturer such as Agfa or Forte goes out of business no new companies are stepping up to take their place. When Heico stops making its wash aid no new little companies are bringing a different kind of wash aid to the market. When your local camera store or wet lab goes out of business nobody is opening up new local stores or new labs to replace them.

I wasn't suggesting that all traditional materials will necessarily disappear, I don't get into those debates because I can't predict the future. I was just saying that I find it sad to see an entire industry, especially one that has been an integral part of the lives of millions and millions of people over the last century or so, disappearing.


Brian,

Forte and Agfa split, but Slavich, Fotomak-something-or-other, Foma, Rollei , Fotospeed and Lucky were the new kids on the block the last time I was at Freestyle. While I haven't tried every new product (I don't have the time!) of the ones I have tried, I'm very impressed by Foma pan 100---it takes the sting out of loosing Plus-X and Verichrome Pan! :) The industry is changing---but its not dying.

[Al D]

As far as archival goes..some digital printing processes may possess archival qualities, but in the preservation of the original file as captured by the camera, digital is waaay down on the list of being an archival medium. I wonder if my digital files will even be readable in 10 years. The prints will be OK, but what is important is the original digital negative (so to speak).

I used to work as a consultant in document management and imaging.

The issue with digital formats is not the real problem here. An uncompressed TIFF format (vs, say, CCITT Group III or Group IV compression) is very stable (all meta-data concerning the image is tagged and the data is uncompressed) and there would be no problem - from a software development standpoint - writing codecs for this format decades from now. In effect, as long as binary digital computing survives, the format is quite viable and lossless. This, naturally, is not true for any "lossy" format (JPEG, GIF, PNG) nor one that exploits compression.

The real issue is stability of the physical storage medium (CDs, etc.) It's extremely difficult to estimate the practical lifetimes of CDs, DVDs, etc. and here the data suggests that analog has the edge. An archivally-processed silver gelatin print that is properly toned and stored can be expected to last as long as the paper support lasts. And this could well exceed several centuries. By comparison, few have gone so far as to suggest that CDs, DVDs are readable more than say, 50 years, after their manufacture. This would require scheduled transfer of files from older medium to new medium (whatever they may be - I'm not going to predict CDs or DVDs will be around even 25 years from now!).

At the end of they day we know that archivally-processed AZO prints can last more than a century because, well, there are specimens produced prior to 1900 that survive to the present day. I would not feel comfortable in asserting that an AZO print produced in the present day and archivally stored would fare as well, nor would I feel comfortable in making the same statement for digital inkjet prints regardless of whatever scientific data was available at hand to support that viewpoint.

Assertions as to the archival nature of an art medium have to be buttressed by empirical results. And despite the efforts of Wilhem and other researchers there is no ultimate substitute for the passage of time. And that makes fools of us all...

[Andrew O'Neill]

So...now that my favourite paper Forte Polygrade V fibre is gone, what is a reasonable substitute?

[Gene McCluney]

So...now that my favourite paper Forte Polygrade V fibre is gone, what is a reasonable substitute?

Most vendors have plenty. Why don't you stock up?

[John Kasaian]

IMHO paper lasts a long time in the freezer, but stocking up (hopefully) is a short term solution unless you've got a set up like Micheal and Paula---of course with Andrew being in the funeral business he just might have access to a lot of 'cold storage' :rolleyes:---but hey, maybe there is something more satisfactory out there to stock up on. When an old favorite is lost its time to explore and experiment (as unpleasant as it sounds) maybe nothing will replace Forte, but then maybe some other product will be found to be better! My 2 cents anyway.

[Gene McCluney]

I agree the time to test new papers is when you find out your existing paper is being discontinued, however there is still a valid reason to stock up, because it can allow you to keep making prints to your satisfaction while you explore your options. The announcement of a factory closing DOES NOT MEAN that all of a sudden the product is unavailable. Kodak (for example) announced the end of their b/w papers about a year before existing stocks ran out..in some cases some Kodak papers are STILL available. So...Forte product is still around, not only under the Forte brand, but also the various private labels that used Forte as their source.