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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

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 (http://www.gordonmoat.com)

[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.

[jnantz]

it isn't that hard to make b/w emulsion and coat on paper
or plates. i don't have a crystal ball but i have a feeling
it will be small scale commercially made film + paper
but the 1800s all over again for people who want that ..
(kind of like it is today for some folks)

[John Bowen]

Frank,

I, like you, haven't a clue what the future holds. With some products disappearing and others occasionally in short supply; my solution has been to "stock-up." I figure I have about another 20-30 years of LF photography left in me, so the freezer is stocked with TMY, the shelves are full of Azo (with Lodima to join it shortly) and the chemical shelf has enough ingredients to mix up Pyrocat HD and Amidol for a long, long time. Do I have 30 years worth? No, but I won't be upset if B&H is sold out of 8x10 TMY for a couple months.

Stocking up doesn't have to be a "do it all now" cost. I slowly built up most of what I have. Everytime I finished a box of film, I'd order two more. The only real large orders were for 7x17 TMY in 2005/6 and the recent Lodima order. Most of the Azo has been acquired from Ebay. The chemicals have been recent additions. No use having all the fim and paper if you can't mix the developers.... Personally, I'm as worried about the availability/cost of raw chemicals as I am about the availability of film.

We are fortunate to have new products like Lodima and the new "Agfa" papers.

For some, coating their own may be a practical solution, but I'd prefer to spend my time making pictures rather than coating plates and/or papers.

My job includes disaster recovery preparedness planning. I guess I just carried it over to my favorite hobby. That includes splitting up my paper/chemical stockpiles between two locations. If I have a fire at my home, I only loose 1/2 of the Azo/Amidol....

When it comes to my photography, the buck stops with me!

[bob carnie]

I have injet an RA4 at my operation.

RA4 is more ecoomical to operate under one main condition.
The wet chemical process needs paper and lots of it .
If there are dead times the process starts drifting and harder to plot. We will flash to black raw photographic paper *expensive option * on down days and put it through the processor , the chemicals thank me for it , and my plots stay more consistant.
When you reach a critical point and your plots are uncontrollable then you dump**expensive** on a regular basis or get out of the game.
Today I am going to put 20 ft of 30inch paper flashed to black through the machine.

Ink Jet does not have this problem , keeping the machine in line is a much easier process.
The more people buy home printers ,office printers , the more demand for inkjet will come our way as the clients will want to closely mimic their own prints.
Therefore less demand for RA4 and more for ink or whatever method people can buy for printing at home .
I see the only hope for RA4 is if Costcoe , Loblaws and large box operations purchase Theta **Durst** RA$ processors/printers and pound out 30x40 for 9.99 . This was a topic on another thread and I was stating this very issue as to why every lab in NA that wants to keep their RA4 alive will try their damdest to offer a simple cost effective way for clients to output their digital files onto RA4. some thought it was a quality drop issue but for mid size labs it is imperative to keep the paper running through the processor to keep the quality high.

Before I started my printing business I managed a high quality E6 lab running 24 /7 E6 film.. From my perspective and knowing a few owners of this sort of lab, keeping a E6 line in control,clean and profitable requires only one thing.... film....beyond a first rate knowledge of process control.

There is no doubt this is why E6 unfortunately will be the first process to go, single shot runs will become the order of the day** in fact once the only house left in Toronto decides to trash their line, I will start running single batch E6***

I do not know if this is rampart in everyones region but in my province *Ontario* all or most of the colleges, universitys and private photoschools are ripping out wet darkrooms and replacing with electronic.
this practice started about 10 years ago here, and I believe is the ultimate kiss of death for a lot of film , fibre print and alternative wet processes.
It is only as few cycles away from extinction. I do not see the young photographers interested in wet process, a few diehards maybe but from my viewpoint most are interested in digital platform and not willing or able to learn what I do.

I am learning all I can about digital output, to keep money coming into my lab and keeping my staff working.
But on a personal note I am learning everything I can about alternative wet proceses that I can do that does not rely on a spread sheet analysis of Ilford or Kodak or any manufacturer for that matter.











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.

[J D Clark]

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 agree. There's a huge assumption by many people that I talk with that, once digital photography/printing becomes "good enough," or that the output becomes indistinguishable from a silver print, that I should whole-heartedly switch. That couldn't be further from the truth -- I use film and silver paper because that's the way I want to work; I've spent enough of my life (including these few minutes) in front of a computer.

If there comes a day that I can't get film or paper, and cannot make my own, it's unlikely that I will switch to using a digital process -- not because the results wouldn't be sufficient, but because the tools and software interesting enough to spend that much time with them. I have a digital camera, and use it for snapshots and things like the air races (I had my field camera at the air races, too), but I can't imagine using it for the "art" that I do. More likely I'll take up painting again, or something...

That said, I also don't think it's likely that film will disappear, or that I won't be able to buy enough to last the rest of my life. The recent new film releases have me encouraged. For paper, the new ADOX version of Multi Contrast Classic is excellent, and has me very encouraged about the access to high quality silver papers. I'm buying and using it as much as I can.

John Clark
www.johndclark.com

[BennehBoy]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/sets/72157603226919391/

[Frank Petronio]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_or...7603226919391/
__________________

Well my question is answered quite nicely! Thanks

[Jim Michael]

A polymer substrate incorporating light sensitive nanosites which will change state upon being exposed to light. A device capable of reading these states will generate a digital file and change the state back to its light-sensitive mode. It will cost about $.50 per 4x5 in today's money. The nanosites will be distributed randomly within the substrate resulting on no perceptible grain or digital artifacts.

[Wallace_Billingham]

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.

Actually every Wal-Mart store is dropping the wet Fuji Minilabs for dry ones. They are doing this slowly over the next few years as the stores remodeled or the old ones break down. New stores will never have a wet Minilab

I realize that Wal-Mart is not a "pro-lab" by any stretch of the imagination, however when you think about how much RA-4 paper they used across the entire system that is a major deal

[Andre Noble]

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.

Intuitively, even many in the general public do not equate inkjet prints to photographs.

I visit Freestyle in Hollywood and they say analogue is experiencing a resurgance.

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.

[BetterSense]

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

The general public does not and will not know the difference. They do not know the difference because we, the enthusiasts, do not educate them properly. In the absence of any other opinion, the general public will be using whatever the industry decides to give them, and know nothing about it. Marketing departments the world over will make the calculation that a newer technology will be 'good enough' and will sell it to the general public without so much as a relabeling...or perhaps a "now with new improved technology" label.

[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 ... :rolleyes:

[BetterSense]

It wasn't, but as far as I know, there was no TMY, no Velvia, and no Ektar 100. It's not like nothing has changed since the '70s either.

[Ben Syverson]

Can't Kodak or whomever continue to make T-grain emulsions, and make them available for sale as bulk chemicals?
An emulsion is not just a chemical you dump on some plastic -- it's a sensitive process that requires specialized equipment to commercialize.

[Robert Hughes]

An emulsion is not just a chemical you dump on some plastic -- it's a sensitive process that requires specialized equipment to commercialize.
Hunh? So all those alternative photo guys aren't really sensitizing their film & paper? I'm not talking about commercialized production runs - I am looking more toward the kitchen counter school of manufacture. What is "T" grain emulsion that is so different from the old-school stuff, and why is it too precious to make available for DYI photo people?

[dwross]

Hunh? So all those alternative photo guys aren't really sensitizing their film & paper? I'm not talking about commercialized production runs - I am looking more toward the kitchen counter school of manufacture. What is "T" grain emulsion that is so different from the old-school stuff, and why is it too precious to make available for DYI photo people?

Grain character is at the heart of emulsion characteristics. The manner in which silver nitrate and halide salts are run together determines grain size and shape. A modern T-grain emulsion is more of a challenge for home production than the older emulsions. If you can visualize two curves on a graph of the time it takes to make an emulsion, the silver and the salts are changing at different rates, affecting grain shape and size. To achieve maximum control of the emulsion, it is necessary to control the concentrations of the constituents as the grains are forming. This requires some fairly sophisticated lab equipment.

As for 'precious': T-grain technology is still very proprietary information, locked up in vaults that make a goblin bank look like a ceramic pig. Fortunately, there are dedicated amateurs and retired professionals working the problem. In the meantime, I don't think it's an issue for LF photographers. T-grains were a boon mostly for roll film. For those of us who use sheet film or dry plates, an old, silver-rich emulsion, full of character and easily controlled by the user is certainly within our grasp and quite possibly far more satisfying than modern (and some feel 'soulless') emulsions.

d
www.thelightfarm.com

[Brian Ellis]

If Kodak stops making film I don't know where their profits will come from. If you look at their SEC filings, it's obvious that some aspects of film production are very profitable for them and digital is running at a sizable loss. Unfortunately they don't subdivide the information in enough detail to know exactly what types of film and related things go into the broad category that includes but is not limited to film (I forget what exactly that category is called) but when you see positive numbers for the category that includes film and negative numbers for the category that includes digital it seems fairly obvious that without film Kodak would be in even worse shape than it already is.