"How much longer can photographic film hold on?"

[cyrus]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_film_s_fade_out

Quote:

But with the film market shrinking by more than 20 percent annually, most other signs point downhill. Analysts foresee Kodak offloading its still-profitable film division sometime in the next half-dozen years as it battles to complete a long and painful digital transformation.

Kodak will churn out a variety of films as long as there's sufficient demand for each of them, says Scott DiSabato, its marketing manager for professional film. It has even launched four new types since 2007.

While digital has largely closed the image-quality gap, DiSabato says a top-line film camera using large-format film "is still unsurpassed" in recording high-resolution images.

"The beauty with film is a lot of wonderful properties are inherent and don't require work afterward" whereas digital can involve heavy computer manipulation to get the same effect, DiSabato says.

"In the extreme, they call it `stomped on,'" he said. "But a lot of photographers want to be photographers, not computer technicians. And some prized film capabilities — grain, color hues, skin-tone reproduction — can't quite be duplicated no matter how much stomping goes on."

[Steve Smith]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/8525839/Traditional-camera-film-makes-a-come-back.html






Steve.

[cyrus]

We should just have a single thread dedicated to such news items re film doom and boom!

[paulr]

Kodak will churn out a variety of films as long as there's sufficient demand for each of them, says Scott DiSabato, its marketing manager for professional film. It has even launched four new types since 2007.

I'd like to hear an analysis from someone close to the industry. It would seem that considering Kodak's scale and the kinds of facilities they have to handle it, they would hit that threshold sooner than a smaller producer.

I just don't know what's involved for a company that wants to make film on a smaller scale for a more specialized market.

[Nathan Potter]

The quality of the film product is what is paramount and high quality takes sophisticated equipment and exacting QA.

Consistent preparation of the silver emulsion in B&W and in the extreme with color requires a chemistry supply that is consistent over time. The coating process whether done by spin coat, meniscus coat, spray coat or dip coating has to be phenominally controlled.

Starting from scratch would require a clean room throughout the process from incoming paper/film, paper/film prep, coating, drying, cutting, packaging. Separate line for B&W film, B&W paper, color film. Development costs for color would be extremely high unless a process could be bought along with the dye coupler specs. QA lab would have to be an integral part of the operation.

So here's a wild guess:

10,000 sq. ft. of class 100/10 clean space - 20 million
Equipment (much custom) - 30 million
QA space and operation - 2 million
Development and qualification - 20 million
Production per 1 million ft. sq. B&W film - 4 million
Production per 1 million ft. sq. color film - 15 million

So perhaps 100 million would get you a somewhat slick operation.

Buy an old IC fab and the price goes way down.

Of course a job shop operation could be drastically less expensive.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[Bruce Watson]

This again? Yawn...

[Drew Wiley]

The end of the world has been officially rescheduled on Oct 21st.

[Ray Van Nes]

Remember that journalists are not impartial and they live by hyperbole. The "biggest", "worst" - "ahhh , the sky is falling!" To create interest, this writer needed paint the picture blackest by quoting unsubstantiated opinions and carefully selected facts or statistics. " There are lies, damned lies and there are statistics."

The second article had a different hook. Neither writer cares whether film exists or not, they just want something to write about.

I do not think anyone can predict how things will fall out. My own personal view is that there will still be some bloodletting but eventually the market will stabilize and there will be some small companies will cater to what will be to them , a healthy market. Take the example of Bostick and Sullivan who supply materials for processes that ceased to be commercially viable before the Second World War.

The best we can do is go out and buy fresh materials from our suppliers and try to support them in any way we can.

[sully75]

The quality of the film product is what is paramount and high quality takes sophisticated equipment and exacting QA.

Consistent preparation of the silver emulsion in B&W and in the extreme with color requires a chemistry supply that is consistent over time. The coating process whether done by spin coat, meniscus coat, spray coat or dip coating has to be phenominally controlled.

Starting from scratch would require a clean room throughout the process from incoming paper/film, paper/film prep, coating, drying, cutting, packaging. Separate line for B&W film, B&W paper, color film. Development costs for color would be extremely high unless a process could be bought along with the dye coupler specs. QA lab would have to be an integral part of the operation.

So here's a wild guess:

10,000 sq. ft. of class 100/10 clean space - 20 million
Equipment (much custom) - 30 million
QA space and operation - 2 million
Development and qualification - 20 million
Production per 1 million ft. sq. B&W film - 4 million
Production per 1 million ft. sq. color film - 15 million

So perhaps 100 million would get you a somewhat slick operation.

Buy an old IC fab and the price goes way down.

Of course a job shop operation could be drastically less expensive.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

Just wondering how the Chinese are putting out pretty good quality film seemingly from out of nowhere? Maybe they are old film factories.

[paulr]

Does anyone has the facilities to efficiently make film in smaller quantities? I think the writing's on the wall that Kodak and the other big guns are going to get out of the business sooner or later. I'd want to know what the barriers to entry are for small companies who want to form a cottage industry.

[Ron Stowell]

I'm 66 years old and I believe that film will be available for long as I will want it. If younger photographers want to use it for more years then I have left, then start buying and using film.

[Jay DeFehr]

One way to look at it is:

As long as there are film photographers, there will be film.

Another way is:

As long as there is film, there will be film photographers.

I think both are correct.

[Lynn Jones]

As i have opined before, there is a hard core of film users, especially b/w (also true of LF users). There are several low volume film makers that have survived over the years and they should be around for quite awhile. My guess is that Kodak will "chicken out" from stock market pressures and sell their coating alleys to a low bidder. Of the Biggies, I guess that Fuji will hold out for awhile, perhaps due to the far east growing market.

This white haired elder statesman of photography is guessing that film and LF will be around for at least 20 to 25 years, longer than I'm likely to live.

Lynn

[Brian C. Miller]

I'd want to know what the barriers to entry are for small companies who want to form a cottage industry.

There's at least one thread on this over on APUG. A former engineer from Kodak Australia saved some parts from a coating machine that was dismantled, and built his own coating machine. He can coat his own B&W film, but his goal is color. (B&W production has a "low" entry point.)

The main problem are the chemicals. The chemicals are highly proprietary and jealously guarded, and someone new to the market would have to hire engineers to recreate appropriate formulas. How many millions ($45 million?) did Kodak invest in China Lucky film and then drop? Probably at least that much to get something off the ground. A company would want to get something that Kodak wants to sell, without it being dismantled, and license the chemical patents, etc.

Remember, 8x10 TMY is special order now. There wasn't enough world-wide demand to normally stock the product, and while a $30,000 order may seem big to us, it isn't enough to support an actual independent manufacturer.

[John Kasaian]

I just picked up 50 sheets of HP-5+ in 8x10 for the summer.
Freestyle seems to be selling quite a bit of Arista.edu Ultra. Enough to sell out!
I've been buying it, anyway. And now x-ray film to add to the mix as well.
Why do you guys seem to think film is just barely hanging in there?

[cyrus]

Well it is already tough enough being a film photographer so the end if film - if ever- will only induce more creative people to cone up with more creative DIY solutions . I mean, I'm already having to learn a lot about optics and electricity when I try to revive and old enlarger or power source so if I ever have to learn to mix my own gelatin.e silver and coat my own plates, I will. All part of the art , as far as I am concerned. Not to mention all the alt processes that would still be viable. So, I'm not worried. Roll with the punches, stiff upper lip, lemonaide from lemons, etc etc.

[Andrew O'Neill]

The only thing I want to see die, are threads like this.

[John Kasaian]

At least on the sheet film end of the spectrum, film is alive and well. There are places that sell it and companys that manufacture it. Roll film otoh is getting harder to find at tourist attractions & local drug stores, the places where the consumer film market has traditionally been concentrated. That goes along with the disappearance of camera stores and traditional processing labs. Families are no longer recording their history on film---thats understandable---but film dying?
LOL!
Consider this: there are more horses now, when they aren't much other than playthings, than 100 years ago when they still pulled plows, wagons, artillery and streetcars. Why? Because people still appreciate the intrinsic beauty and workings of the horse & the companionship they provide, just as 100 years from now people will still appreciate the intrinsic beauty and workings of the view camera & the art that can be produced with one.
Someone is buying up all those Shen Haos (I certainly haven't seen any marked down to move on a clearance table!)

[mikebarger]

You can build a horse one at a time, not so easy with roll film.

[Tony Evans]

Longer than me.

[paulr]

My guess is that Kodak will "chicken out" from stock market pressures and sell their coating alleys to a low bidder.

It's not a question of them chickening out ... they're a company that's fighting to survive. If they reach a point where they start losing money on film and can't find a way out of it, they'll drop it. It's really that simple.

[Jay DeFehr]

Consider this: there are more horses now, when they aren't much other than playthings, than 100 years ago when they still pulled plows, wagons, artillery and streetcars.

Sure about that?

According to this source:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mrussell/ANSC440/Intro%20to%20horses.pdf

there were 26.5 million horses in the U.S. in 1910, and 92 million people (.28 horses per capita)

In 2000 there were 7.1 million horses and 281 million people (.025 horses per capita).

So there were more than 10 times more horses in 1910 than in 2000.


Why? Because in 1910 horses were indispensable tools, and in 2000 they were companions.

Surely, people still appreciate the intrinsic beauty of horses, but they don't need one. Just as people will appreciate the intrinsic beauty of a view camera, but they won't need film to use one.

[David R Munson]

It's not a question of them chickening out ... they're a company that's fighting to survive. If they reach a point where they start losing money on film and can't find a way out of it, they'll drop it. It's really that simple.

That totally sucks but is totally true.

[paulr]

That totally sucks but is totally true.

It's why I'm wondering about the practicality of small companies making it...

Re: horses ... on a more disturbing note, they still use larged hooved mammals to make film, don't they?

[John Kasaian]

You can build a horse one at a time, not so easy with roll film.

But you can certainly coat glass plates one at a time;)

[John Kasaian]

Sure about that?

According to this source:

http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~mrussell/ANSC440/Intro%20to%20horses.pdf

there were 26.5 million horses in the U.S. in 1910, and 92 million people (.28 horses per capita)

In 2000 there were 7.1 million horses and 281 million people (.025 horses per capita).

So there were more than 10 times more horses in 1910 than in 2000.


Why? Because in 1910 horses were indispensable tools, and in 2000 they were companions.

Surely, people still appreciate the intrinsic beauty of horses, but they don't need one. Just as people will appreciate the intrinsic beauty of a view camera, but they won't need film to use one.

My info came from a farrier's conference a couple of years ago.
But whatever the numbers there is still an active horse industry in the USA that is worth a great deal of money, and an industry which exists for reasons other than man's infatuation with modern technology. It exists because enough people wantit to exist, so I maintain that traditional photography isn't so far off the mark in this respect.

[Oren Grad]

Does anyone has the facilities to efficiently make film in smaller quantities? I think the writing's on the wall that Kodak and the other big guns are going to get out of the business sooner or later. I'd want to know what the barriers to entry are for small companies who want to form a cottage industry.

Harman Technology (Ilford monochrome products) operates a coating machine that is a city block long. But during the difficult years since the bankruptcy of the former Ilford Imaging they have become a much leaner operation; they've radically reduced the size of their staff and have figured out how to manage their coating and finishing operations to make shorter product runs economically viable, while still maintaining good QC. (No, Frank, you don't have to tell us again.)

They have a much smaller second coating machine that as I recall is used mainly for R&D, but can also be used to produce product if necessary.

In principle it is entirely possible to use smaller coating machines to make excellent monochrome products. In practice, we see that the smaller players seem to find quality control a challenge.

There's a lot of voodoo in coating film and paper, and even with experienced staff a fair amount of trial and error - and hence, a fair amount of up-front cost - can be expected before saleable product can be produced reliably. The only important analog film/paper startup that I'm aware of in recent years (in the West, I should add - I know hardly anything about what may be going on in China) is the resuscitation of some of the old Agfa film and paper product lines by the Fotoimpex-renamed-Adox group, working in collaboration with these folks -

http://www.inoviscoat.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=81&Itemid=130

- who run the coating machine. Arguably it shouldn't be considered a true startup, because of the substantial tangible and intangible inheritance from Agfa. Even at that, because of a combination of economic conditions, marketing considerations and technical challenges, bringing these products to market has been a very slow process, and not without some QC hiccups. This isn't low-hanging fruit - you need a patient investor and very knowledgeable and committed management to pull it off. But the packages of fresh Adox MCC and MCP paper that are being happily consumed now in many of our darkrooms are testimony that it can be done.

[Oren Grad]

More re barriers to entry: Beyond laying your hands on a coating machine and hiring qualified, experienced production staff, procuring all necessary raw materials in sufficient quality and quantity at a tolerable price can be a challenge. The problems caused by the spike in the price of silver are obvious. But more obscure or specialized inputs, such as certain specialty chemical compounds, or things like backing paper for 120 rolls, can also be difficult to procure in the small quantities needed for niche-market product runs. As I recall, Simon Galley of Harman has observed that even at their (relatively) high volumes they sometimes find themselves having to buy years' worth of certain inputs at a time to get them at all. That means precious capital tied up in inventory for extended periods.

[Jim Jones]

It's why I'm wondering about the practicality of small companies making it...

Re: horses ... on a more disturbing note, they still use larged hooved mammals to make film, don't they?

Provocative thought. Less disturbing, except perhaps for PETA, is the use of horses in movies and, in my area, for farming. A horse still has more practical intelligence than computerized farm equipment.

The demise of film in photography and horses in farming is far in the future.

[Marko]

Re: horses ... on a more disturbing note, they still use larged hooved mammals to make film, don't they?

Yeah, it'd be kinda hard to make Charge of the Light Brigade and such without them, don't you think? :D

But as for movies themselves, they're increasingly shot and projected digitally.

[David R Munson]

It's why I'm wondering about the practicality of small companies making it...

Re: horses ... on a more disturbing note, they still use larged hooved mammals to make film, don't they?

Small specialist companies catering to a community of devotees willing to pay a higher but (hopefully) still manageable price for our materials may well be where things eventually end up going. It seems a natural enough course for the evolution of things. When the generalist has lost the proper motivation to continue with something, the specialist steps in.

[Brian Ellis]

Small specialist companies catering to a community of devotees willing to pay a higher but (hopefully) still manageable price for our materials may well be where things eventually end up going. It seems a natural enough course for the evolution of things. When the generalist has lost the proper motivation to continue with something, the specialist steps in.

I doubt it. Judging from the "what's your age" thread here, I'd guess that the average age of film users (not counting users of disposable cameras) is something around 50 - 60. As they/we die off or switch entirely to digital or stop buying film for any other reason they/we aren't being replaced in the same numbers by new film users. I say that because if they were then film sales shouldn't be dropping at the rate they've dropped over the last decade. And I have to think that there are certain fixed costs in the manufacture of film, regardless of volume, that make it impossible to profitably cater to a small cadre of film users at any practical price.

Some people express the view that large format film sales are doing fine and so we shouldn't be concerned. I don't know how large format film sales are doing. I've never seen a breakdown of film sales by format from any reliable source. But whether it's true or not doesn't matter IMHO. I can't imagine that large format film sales alone could possibly sustain a company devoted solely to that. If there's no 35mm or medium format there won't be any large format either IMHO.

[Brian K]

It's my understanding from a source who has viewed the facilities that the new coating facility that Kodak built a few years ago, which necessitated the discontinuation of infra red film and that subtle processing change to T-max100 ( as well as a change in it's name) was so that emulsion types could be changed out without a major requirement for re-tooling or re-calibrating. This new coating facility used infra red film inspection, hence the discontinuation of infra red film.

This new machine could allow Kodak to do smaller film runs and switch from one film to another readily, so instead of having whole buildings dedicated to one film type, they could have just one, state of the art building which could handle them all on one coating line and produce them all more efficiently and cost effectively.

[Jay DeFehr]

My info came from a farrier's conference a couple of years ago.
But whatever the numbers there is still an active horse industry in the USA that is worth a great deal of money, and an industry which exists for reasons other than man's infatuation with modern technology. It exists because enough people wantit to exist, so I maintain that traditional photography isn't so far off the mark in this respect.

John,

I understand your point, but your example radically undermines it, in this case. In fact, film is following the horses example, but contrary to your intention.

[John Kasaian]

John,

I understand your point, but your example radically undermines it, in this case. In fact, film is following the horses example, but contrary to your intention.
How so?
Perhaps a better example would be rolled oats? If we're talking film, film is one of the nutrients traditional film photography feeds on.
You can do pretty much anything you can do on a horse by using a dirt bike. Some prefer digital dirtbikes, some prefer traditional horses. Dirt bikes use gas, horses use oats. As long as there is a demand, there is going to be dirtbikes & gas, and horses & oats.
To ask the question "How long can film hold on?" stirkes me as ridiculous as those irksome questions on the msn home page,perhpas like : "How long will steam irons hold on?" The insinuation is that we should just get film's demise over with---film is obviously obsolete & digital is whats high tech, it's whats in fashion.
Why sculpt marble when moulding or vacume forming carbon fiber is what's high tech, it's whats in fashion?
Fish farms are high tech and farmed salmon & tilapia is whats in fashion. That has no effect on guys with fly rods going after trout.
While the same end product--a fish dinner---is similar, in another sense it isn't, because how it came to be dinner carries it's own story. Like each print.

[Drew Wiley]

That's some good horse sense, John. Maybe you did spend some time at the Clovis
Rodeo in the good ole days. And maybe that's why rich people collect horses rather
than dirt bikes, and why British royalty play polo riding horses rather than riding Vespas. Style, authenicity, living it! The hunt is just as important as the kill. Danged gadget geeks anyway - what do they know about picking stickers out of a crumpled Stetson and the smell or real manure on yer boots!

[Jay DeFehr]

How so?

Because when horses were necessities/tools they were more than 10X as available as they are now. Significantly, the types of horses available are different, as well. As similar as the trends might be, horses and film are different things, and subject to different selection pressures, and we don't yet know where film will land on the continuum of extinct-endangered-scarce.

To question how long film can hold on strikes me as a natural question to be asked by those who use it. I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the attitudes of those asking the question.

Sculpted marble and vacuum-formed carbon fiber never shared a common application.

Film is not a natural resource, like fish are, and a fish dinner is almost never the end product, or motivation for fly fishing, as most fly fishers catch and release. It's the experience of fishing that gets them into their waders, not the promise of a meal.

I was both a commercial Salmon fisher (briefly), and a fly fisher. In the case of Salmon, it was the resource that became scarce, not the consumer of the resource. It's simply not the case that there are millions of film users standing by with their empty film cameras, hoping the film comes back, like Salmon fishers hoping for fish, and then turning to digital (or farm raised fish) because it is the best alternative. Consumers prefer, by the millions, the alternative to film.

Recognizing the trend is not the same as welcoming, or enjoying it. I wish there were enough film users to maintain a competitive and diverse film industry alongside the incredible and admirable advances in digital technology, but film users from every market niche- commercial, motion picture, newspaper, portrait studios, wedding photographers, students, consumers, hobbyists, and even artists have found advantages in digital that have won them away from film. Given this reality, it's natural to wonder how long film can continue to hold on to it's shrinking market share, whether one agonizes over the current conditions of the market, or enjoys them.

[Jay DeFehr]

That's some good horse sense, John. Maybe you did spend some time at the Clovis
Rodeo in the good ole days. And maybe that's why rich people collect horses rather
than dirt bikes, and why British royalty play polo riding horses rather than riding Vespas. Style, authenicity, living it! The hunt is just as important as the kill. Danged gadget geeks anyway - what do they know about picking stickers out of a crumpled Stetson and the smell or real manure on yer boots!

The horse/ dirt bike comparison was not very convincing, since the shared application is trivial, at best. A more compelling comparison would be horse-tractor, or horse-automobile. Not many people, rich or poor, use horses for transportation or for farming. Rich people do, however, collect automobiles, and millions of other people use them every day.

I wonder what kind of cameras the royals use?

[Drew Wiley]

Wild salmon still sells for twice as much as farmed and tastes a lot better too. No quality restaurant would serve that greasy farmed type. Nothin scarce about horses,
in just about every flavor one could think of - mini horse ranches are everywhere you
look on the outskirts of town, and people ride em. Some of those critters cost quite a
bit more than the average car too, some quite a bit more than the average luxury car.
Nothin backwards about it. And there ain't nothin particularly progressive about going
digital - it's just another options, sometimes appropriate, sometimes not. I find this
whole line of discussion jaded like some kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. Film is obsolete
because it isn't sold on the Sharper Image website ... oh, let's see ... aren't THEY the
ones who already went extinct?

[Drew Wiley]

Jay, I do know something about the Royals' extended family official portraits, and have
seen the shots and some of the prints prior to being sent to Britain. Classic Hassie MF color neg film - no digital prints allowed (though digital files were used for archival backup just in case something ever happened to the original negs), mandatory hand-printing using classic dye transfer technique. Portrait sessions specifically of the Queen
have been well published; but the instance I'm referring to was the much more ambitious official project for a permanent collection about the entire royal clan, as well
as major related figures (sometimes portly figures) in British society.

[cyrus]

A note from Versalab July 2010 (http://www.versalab.com/server/photo/products/parallel.htm): We are pleased to see a considerably improved market for darkroom equipment. This has been on the rise for a year and should be an exciting thought for those reading our web pages

[Drew Wiley]

Back to the analogy. I've had my share of tractors. They just kept breaking down and
had to be replaced a lot. Sound familiar? I wasn't ever a flatland farmer, but used tractors for getting around, hauling stuff, mowing etc. A lot of maintenance expense. Horses were more reliable on the ranches at least, and you didn't need a fancy one to
get the job done. I wonder how much longer these techies types will remain stubborn
before they realize that there are certain things which LF analog does cheaper and better. Plus it looks good. Heck, even the movies look way better on real film.

[John Kasaian]

How so?

Because when horses were necessities/tools they were more than 10X as available as they are now. Significantly, the types of horses available are different, as well. As similar as the trends might be, horses and film are different things, and subject to different selection pressures, and we don't yet know where film will land on the continuum of extinct-endangered-scarce.

To question how long film can hold on strikes me as a natural question to be asked by those who use it. I think you're making a lot of assumptions about the attitudes of those asking the question.

Sculpted marble and vacuum-formed carbon fiber never shared a common application.

Film is not a natural resource, like fish are, and a fish dinner is almost never the end product, or motivation for fly fishing, as most fly fishers catch and release. It's the experience of fishing that gets them into their waders, not the promise of a meal.

I was both a commercial Salmon fisher (briefly), and a fly fisher. In the case of Salmon, it was the resource that became scarce, not the consumer of the resource. It's simply not the case that there are millions of film users standing by with their empty film cameras, hoping the film comes back, like Salmon fishers hoping for fish, and then turning to digital (or farm raised fish) because it is the best alternative. Consumers prefer, by the millions, the alternative to film.

Recognizing the trend is not the same as welcoming, or enjoying it. I wish there were enough film users to maintain a competitive and diverse film industry alongside the incredible and admirable advances in digital technology, but film users from every market niche- commercial, motion picture, newspaper, portrait studios, wedding photographers, students, consumers, hobbyists, and even artists have found advantages in digital that have won them away from film. Given this reality, it's natural to wonder how long film can continue to hold on to it's shrinking market share, whether one agonizes over the current conditions of the market, or enjoys them.

I'm not questioning digital photography as being a trend. On the contrary, it is whats here and now and does what it does very efficiently. What I am questioning is the infatuation digital photographers seem to have with killing off film.
We choose the materials and techniques we use, not the film or digital camera companies. They can offer products, they can hype products, but they can't make us buy products unless we live in social order that prefers our tastes & preferences (and Art & culture) to be controlled by corporations.

My point is, if I want to use film, I can still buy it and plenty of people still do---though not usually for the same applications for which it has been traditionally sold.
While there is a hard economic reality about how profitable it is for certain corporations to manufacture film, the fact remains that some companies still make a profit at it and there is still a market, albeit nothing like it once was. Either there will be alternatives in making photographic images, as there are now, or we will be shoehorned into using the same whatever-is-in fashion technology---and talking about the end of film promotes that ideology!

Is that what digital photographers really want?
I don't think so.
Is this what companies that are heavily invested in digital imaging technologies want?:rolleyes:

[Jay DeFehr]

When considering the future of film availability, it's not very useful take the perspective of a film user, since that debate has been settled in the marketplace. Instead, one should take the perspective of the manufacturer. It makes a lot of sense to continue manufacturing film because..........?

It's a growing market? No, it's a rapidly shrinking market.
Costs associated with manufacturing are coming down? No, they're rising sharply.
The technology is in its infancy and gaining momentum? No, the technology is mature, with no new applications being developed.

There's no competing technology? You get my point.

The questions to ask are:

What is the total demand?
Is demand increasing, stable, or decreasing?
Who are the competitors?
What's their market shares?
Which is best positioned to increase their market share?
Which of the giants will fold first?
What effect will that have on the remaining players?
etc., etc.

The sharpness, resolution, or any other characteristic of film is absolutely meaningless in the larger context. How many "superior" products/processes have to disappear before we understand that?

[bob carnie]

I am putting in an order on the Ilford ULF order for a few thousand dollars in film, I hope its around for a little bit longer.

[Jay DeFehr]

Either there will be alternatives in making photographic images, as there are now, or we will be shoehorned into using the same whatever-is-in fashion technology---and talking about the end of film promotes that ideology!..........Is this what companies that are heavily invested in digital imaging technologies want?

Do you mean companies like:

Kodak?
Ilford?
Fuji?

It's interesting that you write:


We choose the materials and techniques we use, not the film or digital camera companies.

And ignore the fact that's why film is retreating and digital is advancing. We have chosen, and we've chosen digital. Why do you think the major film manufacturers are investing heavily in, scrambling to transition to digital? Because that's what we've told them we want.

[cyrus]

It's a growing market? No, it's a rapidly shrinking market.
Costs associated with manufacturing are coming down? No, they're rising sharply.
The technology is in its infancy and gaining momentum? No, the technology is mature, with no new applications being developed.

But don't forget that the companies have long ago sunk the initial investment necessary to start film production, and also have already recouped those up-front costs, so practically every $ generated since is profit. Silver prices may go up but you can recoup that by raising prices for your film. The Film market today may be a far smaller than what is was in its heyday but it will stabilize (though prices of the produce may increase substantially) whilst in digital companies must constantly invest in "keeping up" they face constant competition.

[Jay DeFehr]

Cyrus,

It's true start up costs are no longer a factor, but all the questions remain valid, and operating expenses are significant. Kodak knows better than we do the costs associated with continuing film production, and they've determined to transition to digital. I think consumers will be better off with several competing small manufacturers than a few big ones.

[Drew Wiley]

Jay - to some extent I get paid to predict the fate of those mfg corporations in my own sphere of distribution. I see them rise and collapse. Those of us who have been in
the trenches for a long have generally have a much better nose for it than the Wall St
superstars who are merely tracking statistics. Hundred year old corporations can collapse in a matter of months simply because of an untested game plan. I honostly don't know what will happen to outfits like Kodak and Fuji in the long run. But one thing
I have learned and seen confirmed over and over again, is that a manufacturer who
controls a limited but efficient niche is much more likely to survive in these times than one who tries to be all things to all people, and takes on a business model simply based upon what the alleged competition is doing. EVERYONE is getting into digital imaging right now. It's a melee, and a high risk with a marginal bottom line. Because
Kodak is a publicly-traded corporation who has to look like it's growing, it gets forced
into these scenarios. It's not good. They can't simply scale back to a sustainable level
like a private corporation. But it does give them and Fuji a solid niche in color products.
Nobody else is going to be able to get into color film or paper easily. It's a fairly safe
market, especially now that Fuji and Kodak are not butting heads on entire product
lines. It just makes sense to include these kinds of products on the menu.

[Ash]

The manufacturers of digital cameras are constantly seeking new avenues of profit. It is in their interest to kill off film. That way there is one less competitor to their margin.

[Drew Wiley]

Silver prices and petrochem are going up, but the insatiable demand for consumer electronics may drive certain raw materials like rare earth into unsustainable supply
conditions and wild prices. Digital imaging is part of a savage resource-consuming
trend, especially with all the consumerism emerging in China and India. These kinds of
materials are also becoming essential to defense and communications industries, and
even "green" energy technology. Bad scenario, especially since electronics gear have
a very rapid rate of obsolescene, and because the mfgs of this kind of thing really need it to lose value fast if they're going to make and sell more. Is film really that
backwards or economically unsustainable by comparison?

[Jay DeFehr]

Drew,

How much film would it take to make the number of images that could be made with a Canon 7d?

[Marko]

Forget 7D, how about a $50 10MP Canon (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerShot-A490-Digital-2-5-Inch/dp/B0032JRRXO/)?

At this price and capabilities cross point, I just don't see the same crowd that used to gobble up all those single-shot happy-snappies at the local supermarkets for $10 a pop buying film cameras ever again. There's simply no reason to. And they were the biggest of the three major mass-consumption segments that really carried film.

The other two are movie industry and medical imaging, both of which are busily switching over. Give it a couple of more years and it's game over, all the ideological drivel to the contrary notwithstanding.

Otherwise, we wouldn't be having a dozen threads like this per month, nor the fora like APUG.

[David R Munson]

I doubt it. Judging from the "what's your age" thread here, I'd guess that the average age of film users (not counting users of disposable cameras) is something around 50 - 60. As they/we die off or switch entirely to digital or stop buying film for any other reason they/we aren't being replaced in the same numbers by new film users. I say that because if they were then film sales shouldn't be dropping at the rate they've dropped over the last decade. And I have to think that there are certain fixed costs in the manufacture of film, regardless of volume, that make it impossible to profitably cater to a small cadre of film users at any practical price.

I'd be really interested to see a breakdown of age of the film users overall in all formats, actually. My experience with my peers (I'm 29) reveals a lot of people really enthusiastic about film and shooting a lot of it. It's got a lot of supporters among younger shooters as well as older.

[Jay DeFehr]

Marko,

I agree. I really hope a few film manufacturers, in China or EU, most likely, can keep their lines running, and film of some kind, in a few formats, will be available at less-than-ridiculous prices. In the meantime, I'm going to enjoy it while it lasts, and use as much film as I can afford so I'll have a stockpile of negatives to print if the day should come when I can no longer afford film.

[John Kasaian]

Drew,

How much film would it take to make the number of images that could be made with a Canon 7d?
That isn't a rational arguement if a photographer dosen't want to use 7d. It would be like saying there is no point to landscape photography since the whole planet is available on Google Earth.:rolleyes:

[Jay DeFehr]

That isn't a rational arguement if a photographer dosen't want to use 7d. It would be like saying there is no point to landscape photography since the whole planet is available on Google Earth.:rolleyes:

I wasn't arguing system preference, I was making a point about economics and sustainability.

[John Kasaian]

I wasn't arguing system preference, I was making a point about economics and sustainability.

Making Art has nothing to do with economics. If it did, nobody would be making any art.:)

[Jay DeFehr]

I wasn't making art, I was responding to a post about economics and sustainability of film vs digital. That aside, I disagree with your premise.

[urs0polar]

All this talk of huge costs to make film. Didn't two dudes (musicians, even) invent Kodachrome in their living room? One of the most complex processes *ever*? Yeah, some super smart kodak engineer guy came along and made it better, but don't discount human ingenuity coming up with something so we can continue to lug the big cameras around.

I'm more worried about my scanner dying and there being no replacement with a transparency lid, to be honest. When's that V900 coming out, if ever?

[Curt]

'til the cows come home. Oh! Here they come now!!!!

[Jay DeFehr]

.....don't discount human ingenuity coming up with something so we can continue to lug the big cameras around.

Most of the current ingenuity is directed towards finding ways to avoid the necessity of lugging big cameras around, but I get your point. LF digital sensors that work like a film holder have been discussed, as an example, but it might also be possible to find a way to make home film coating practical and economical. I don't think that problem has been seriously investigated since George Eastman.

I think we should perhaps appreciate a little more the progress towards the holy grail that digital represents. Photographers have always wanted a small camera that makes a big negative, and digital technology is a way to (essentially) do that, and much, much more.

[paulr]

I'm not questioning digital photography as being a trend. On the contrary, it is whats here and now and does what it does very efficiently. What I am questioning is the infatuation digital photographers seem to have with killing off film.

Where do you see this infatuation? I'd personally love it if film stayed around forever, but I'm using a dslr for my current project, for purely pragmatic reasons. I'd love to be doing it large format, but can't afford the film and processing. And the look of lf isn't critical to this project. I'm using what I can, and am delighted to have the option that I found.

If my budget were 10 times bigger, I'd probably shoot LF. If it were 100 times bigger, I'd probably get a technical camera and a Phase One back. If it were smaller I'd be using a camera phone ...

[Brian Ellis]

Here's an interesting take on one reason why many serious amateurs prefer digital to film.

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/blog_index.html
(scroll down to the guest comment by Steve Jacob)

I don't think the desire to avoid labs and do one's own post-processing is the biggest reason why digital is replacing film. But I think it's an important reason for many photographers who weren't in a position to have their own home darkroom andwho had to rely on labs until digital came along.

[Marko]

What I am questioning is the infatuation digital photographers seem to have with killing off film.

[...]

Either there will be alternatives in making photographic images, as there are now, or we will be shoehorned into using the same whatever-is-in fashion technology---and talking about the end of film promotes that ideology!

John, this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. As someone who's been using film since the '70s, then switched to digital and then started playing with LF on the side, I am not seeing any infatuation there.

I see it simply as a matter of convenience and (mostly fiscal) reality. The main reason why I stopped doing photography at one point in my life was that it was unfair to deprive my family of all the space, time and money (in that order) required for meaningful involvement.

IOW, what killed both film and photography itself at that point was the film itself with its attendant requirements!

As the irony would have it, it was precisely digital, both as a medium and a technology, that removed all three of those obstacles for me and allowed me to re-activate my photography. And not just photography itself, digital also made it possible for me to try Large Format, something I always wanted to do but never could afford until now.

But on the larger, less personal note, all you need to do is compare the various fora and you will see that the only places where topics like "the end of film" are ever mentioned are the film-oriented ones. The topic is so far bellow the consciousness level of an ordinary user that you don't even see the word "film" mentioned in places like dpreview.com, much less the rest of the phrase.

Personally, I could live without all this angst and hyperventilation and just concentrate on photography itself. I would be perfectly happy with whatever event causes all this to go away, be it the magical revival or the final demise of film.

Marko

[Jay DeFehr]

Marko,

I mostly agree, but I would rather have film with angst than neither of both.

[rdenney]

Where do you see this infatuation? I'd personally love it if film stayed around forever, but I'm using a dslr for my current project, for purely pragmatic reasons. I'd love to be doing it large format, but can't afford the film and processing. And the look of lf isn't critical to this project. I'm using what I can, and am delighted to have the option that I found.

If my budget were 10 times bigger, I'd probably shoot LF. If it were 100 times bigger, I'd probably get a technical camera and a Phase One back. If it were smaller I'd be using a camera phone ...

This speaks for me. Also the notion of a 4x5 digital sensor. My read on the Pentax 645D is that it is selling just fine (which means demand is keeping up with its current limited production, even at its original relatively high price point). My local dealer bought 10 when they first came out, and had them sold before they arrived. He never has one to show customers other than the one he personally owns--they sell as soon as they arrive.

What it would lack for me (aside from affordability) is the opportunity to express my own long-developed image-management skill with a large-format camera. Please don't misread that--I'm not claiming special skill, but any skill with a large-format camera requires commitment over time. But that is unrelated to the actual product, unless one believes that struggle in making a photograph imbues the photograph with special qualities. I do not believe that, but many do. So, part of why I use a large-format camera is because I know how to, and wish to exercise that knowledge. It is the same reason I do amateur radio, and my answer to those who ask why I don't just call the person I'm contacting on my cell phone.

I have owned a darkroom but keeping a darkroom operational requires a production level I could never sustain in the context of my life. The digital darkroom is far less demanding in that regard. People have complained about the time required at the computer, but I certainly do not spend any more time making any given print than I used to, especially when including the overhead of keeping a darkroom operational. Digital is more expensive, but for me time is more precious than dollars, though neither are particularly abundant.

I suspect most who believe there is a conspiracy against film feel as though their own hard-won skills are being invalidated. This is not true, of course. What it is doing, though, is making it far easier to make technically good photographs, and that places more demands on the artistic quality of a photograph before it can truly reflect the value of that skill. Thus, while large-format photographers used to receive praise for technically skilled prints, that praise is harder to come by now as the general expectation of technical quality has gone up. That has raised the ante for those who define their skills in terms of image detail. And that has, I suspect, led to more interest in still larger formats.

Of course, the replacement of skill with technology was happening for a long time before the digital revolution. Surely Sinar was competing against well-automated medium-format cameras for studio use with all their shutters and automated control systems for their view cameras. For a long time, photography students were required to show up with a fully manual camera to prevent hiding behind technology. That more than anything kept the Pentax K1000 and its clones in production. Canon F-1 users thought Canon AE-1 users simple-minded amateurs, and then both saw T-90 users as knowing even less about exposure. All of those resisted autofocus technologies. Most large-format photographers go back further than any of those advances, wondering how anyone could make a photograph without studying the ground glass at taking aperture, for example.

One thing I have noticed: Prices for film equipment are climbing. The Rolleiflex 3.5 MX Type 2 that was worth maybe $250 at its low point (I traded a $300 TV for mine) is now worth nearly twice that according to KEH's latest catalog. Even Pentax 6x7 stuff is working its way back up. And the tools for careful photography are also climbing in price. Earlier this week in Alaska, my wife accidentally squashed my Minolta Spot F meter in the slide-out mechanism of the RV we rented, and a replacement is in the middle 300's at KEH. Six or eight years ago, I paid about half that at a camera flea market for that meter. (I'll probably replace it with a Pentax Spot V to match the one I already have. It's far easier to use with the Zone System approach.) Increasing prices for film-based photography reflect reduced supply, increased demand, or both. It means that people are keeping stuff instead of dumping it. Will that translate into a stable and sustainable market for film? I sure hope so.

But if there was a viable and affordable 4x5 digital solution for a standard view camera, and if the Pentax 645D were affordable, I could see myself no longer using film.

Oh, one more thing. People are so worried about film, but what I worry about is scanner availability. Already, I have depended on third-party software to keep my Nikon scanner operational with a new computer, and the existence of that solution depends on Ed Hamrick staying healthy and interested. And processing. What's the value of a freezer full of color film if there is nobody left to process it? At least that is more achievable using the cottage-industry approach--as long as the chemicals remain available.

Rick "The chain is only as strong as the weakest link" Denney

[paulr]

John, this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

It sounds to me like the entire technological history of the medium. Photographers have been complaining about their favorite tools and materials getting discontinued since the beginning. Weston threw a hissy fit when commercial platinum papers were discontinued. He threatened to quit entirely ... then he got over himself, started using silver paper, and went on to do the best work of his career.

Everyone who does photography long enough faces this sooner or later. The ______ that you love so much, and have invested so much time in learning how to work with, and that is essential to the look of your work, gets discontinued. Or "improved." It can be a big disruption, and usually comes at most inconvenient time possible. But it's never the end of the world. Your creative vision is not contained in your paper or film.

It's the downside of a medium that's built on commercial technology. We benefit from all the knowledge and superpowers of the manufacturers, but we are also their bitches.

[paulr]

I have owned a darkroom but keeping a darkroom operational requires a production level I could never sustain in the context of my life.

That's a great point and one that doesn't get mentioned enough. I loved my darkroom and worked efficiently in it when I printed at least once a week. But any long break led to a nightmare. I'd have to spend a full day mixing chemicals just to be able to get started. And if this was for a short printing project, most of those chemicals would expire rather than getting used up, and I'd have to go through the same thing again. This issue was probably worse for me than for some, since I mixed my developers and toners from scratch, and use some chemicals (like glycin) that have a short shelf life even in dry form.

The digital world isn't entirely free of this kind of thing ... printing inks have a shelf life, especially pigmented ones, and and a printer set up with inks like the piezo ink sets really need to be used regularly. But overall I don't think it's an issue on the same scale as what you face in the darkroom.

[Tobias Key]

I think it is perhaps rash to assume that if LF film goes away they'll be some Digital MF replacement. I don't think phase one or hasselblad are making out like bandits, and like film now, they do not have the advantage of being subsidised by the consumer market. Camera companies do not make their profits from professionals, even D3's or Eos 1DS's are mainly bought by amateurs. The actual problem for serious photographers now in both the digital and amateur spheres is that the products that we want to use are no longer subsidised by millions of casual snappers. Even point and shoots are suffering from competition from cell phones. A roll of film is a roll film whether it is in a F4 or a disposable camera and Kodak or Fuji would make money. Taking a photo on your Iphone does not support Phase one or Hasselblad. The editorial market doesn't pay enough in most markets to justify ownership of MF digital, and if the products remain marginally profitable they will find that DSLR's will shrink the gap due to their greater R&D resources. So film may falter in the next decade, but it may still outlast MF digital backs.

[John Kasaian]

I wasn't making art, I was responding to a post about economics and sustainability of film vs digital. That aside, I disagree with your premise.

So the market has lilttle if any bearing on the economics and sustainabiity of film?

Now I'm confused.

There is a market for film. It isn't the traditional market but a market none the less. If film becomes too expensive for established companies to manufacture & market It is entirely conceivable there will be those who will coat their own glass plates or pioneer technologies to efficiently produce smaller runs of emulsions.
In which case film isn't dying. It is (or will be) evolving.

If there is a market.

Declaring film "dead" and waiting for someone to come along and bury it good and deep is contra to the interests of most people here, I'd think.

[Jay DeFehr]

Rick,

I used to worry about scanners, too, but I've since seen some impressive results from scans made with DSLRs.

[urs0polar]

Most of the current ingenuity is directed towards finding ways to avoid the necessity of lugging big cameras around, but I get your point. LF digital sensors that work like a film holder have been discussed, as an example, but it might also be possible to find a way to make home film coating practical and economical. I don't think that problem has been seriously investigated since George Eastman.

I think we should perhaps appreciate a little more the progress towards the holy grail that digital represents. Photographers have always wanted a small camera that makes a big negative, and digital technology is a way to (essentially) do that, and much, much more.

Agreed! We are actually in a pretty cool time right now... LF stuff is cheap, scanner tech is pretty good-ish (v700 not too bad for the price), and if you really try (and are a better technician than I am no doubt), you can compete with or outdo what digital has to offer (other than high ISO). Has there ever been a time when LF film was so good technically and LF itself was so cheap? I have a 8x10 Sinar P2... it's cheaper than a 5DII or D700. Pretty sweet. Someday the Leica S2 will be affordable used, as will digital MF backs, etc etc. I still like film though... I hope color 8x10 film lasts!! :)

[Marko]

Marko,

I mostly agree, but I would rather have film with angst than neither of both.

Well, then, your time is now, enjoy it while you can. Mine is both gone and coming. :D

[Drew Wiley]

Going back a few steps ... Consumer electronics is one of the least sustainable
industries on the planet given its rate of growth. At the consumer end a small digital
camera might seem to conserve a lot of what goes into film and be more cost effective. But cumulatively, things just can't go on at the present pace without a radical reinvention of what we consider digital. Unfortunately, each new tweak seems to reply on the same diminishing resources. One of the bloodiest battles on
the planet has been going on over a type a clay necessary to the computer industry.
It's not just diamonds people kill each other for. China recently blackmailed Japan
by withholding the export of certain rare earths essential to their electronics industry. None of this will determine the hypothetical fate of film; market pressures
and long term questions will. But some kind of crash is inevitable, and it could just
as easily be in something hi-tech. Once the necessary resources get scarce, they'll
be prioritized for military use (like Titanium in Britain). Some recycling obviously
takes place, but at staggering cost to human health and local environments.

[Drew Wiley]

Probably this kind of discussion should recognize the distinct difference between
keeping black and white film alive and color. Small coatings facilities could probably
keep black and white around for a long time. Quality color sheet films requires a far more involved infrastructure. But the real clincher will be the ongoing availability of suitable polyester bases. The overall movie industry is still probably a long ways from digital replacing film outright, especially if we conider its use worldwide; but
it needs a different kind of base than sheet film. I'm not particularly worried. Films
have come and gone all along, and there are still plenty around at the moment. The
only electronic devices I personally need are a light meter, enlarger control, and a film freezer.

[Brian C. Miller]

According to Photo Engineer on APUG, the polyester base is only available in appx. 1-mile lengths. Coating an emulsion onto a base can use a relatively small machine, but securing the base is another problem. Without the base, you don't have the film at all. The next problem is the color chemistry, or something like Kodachrome.

In the article, "A Brief History of Kodachrome (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1906503,00.html)," when Kodachrome was first introduced in 1936 it cost $3.50 per roll, approximately $54 adjusted for inflation.

How many of you would buy film at $55 per roll? Or $500 for ten sheets of 8x10? That kind of money would add up to a Pentax 645D pretty quick.

[Kirk Keyes]

In the article, "A Brief History of Kodachrome (http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1906503,00.html)," when Kodachrome was first introduced in 1936 it cost $3.50 per roll, approximately $54 adjusted for inflation.

That probably included processing too, so it's not that bad!

[Robert Hughes]

I have a half dozen film cameras at least 50 years of age, all working. Load 'em up and go take pretty pictures.

I have three digital cameras - one already broken, one goes through a set of AA batteries in 15 minutes, and one cell phone/camera/calendar/personal disorganizer.

None of these digi devices will be operational in 5 years.

[Drew Wiley]

Brian - what did the first digitals cameras cost, or the first cell phones, etc; then adjust these for inflation - then you'll have more of a level playing field! And what is the sense of badmouthing film in the first place on a large-format forum? No mfg is going to invest in upgrading digital to LF anyway once things like Betterlite scanning backs are gone. It will all be MF or below. But as long as 4x5 film remains popular, then it is possible to order up 8x10 and so forth from the same batch. And popular 4x5
emulsions seem to get run fairly often, even in color film. Crocodiles, horshoe crabs,
and coelocanths might not exactly dominate the earth, but they have outlived the
age of dinosaurs and a whole lot more! I won't be around long enough, but if I was a
betting man, I'd better that digital photography AS WE NOW KNOW IT will be extinct
before film is.

[Discoman]

ugh... someone posted nearly this exact same question on APUG.
look, I cans till go buy 127 film brand new from stores with retail locations.
formats that are actually commonly used are in no danger.

[Brian C. Miller]

Brian - what did the first digitals cameras cost, or the first cell phones, etc; then adjust these for inflation - then you'll have more of a level playing field! And what is the sense of badmouthing film in the first place on a large-format forum?

Drew, I didn't "badmouth" film. I simply referenced the cost of 35mm Kodachrome, adjusted for inflation. That would be 185 rolls of 35mm to equal a Pentax 645D body. (Yes, Kirk, that includes Kodak's monopoly priced developing. After developing was seperated from the film, the price dropped in half. Still not cheap. $27 per roll? Not for me.) I'm just making the point that the price of film can still go up, and its original introduction price was steep.

Bostick & Sullivan 8x10 wet plate collodion kit yields at least 35 plates, which is cheaper than color film, at $7.71 per plate.

But the question still remains: at what point do you give up film because it's too expensive? Yes, film can be purchased. And is $500 per 10 pack of 8x10 color a reasonable price for you?

Yes, a home coating machine can be made. But is the appropriate polyester base material available? At all? When you have to buy at least four miles of base as a minimum order? Kodak sells miles of film, so, hey, no problem there. But for the average guy like me, or the non-average guy like you, that's an extreme problem. That's just the way it is with film. Do you really think that we'd also be producing our own cellulose nitrate or acetate film base? I wouldn't be certain about that.

I hope that various hospitals and clinics keep using enough sheet film to offset the cost of my film. (Last time I was in the dentist lab, they were using film.)

[Steve Smith]

Yes, a home coating machine can be made. But is the appropriate polyester base material available?

The company I work for screen prints conductive inks onto polyester to make flexible circuits. We have enough offcuts to keep me busy if I ever wanted to try to make my own film.

0.125mm thick polyester is fairly easy to get hold of and if enough people were interested, they could combine their money and have a roll split up into several narrower rolls for home use.

Some of these polyesters have a coating to make them more receptive to ink adhesion and I think this would also work in the emulsion's favour.


Steve.

[rdenney]

This notion of home coating is nuts. There are some who will coat their own plates for a specific old-fashioned black-and-white look. But there are very few who will do that just because they want to make photographs.

And forget color.

We are absolutely dependent on the color film industry. We should not pretend otherwise. If people spend effort brewing color media at home, they will be brewing up ways to capture images digitally. I hope it doesn't happen for a long, long time. There is also likely a limit to how little color film can be made at a price the market will bear. I'd love it if Polaroid Type 55 were still available, but I cannot and will not pay the prices being asked for out-of-date boxes of the stuff. We all have our limits. If the cost of producing color reaches a point where it cannot sustain that price point, it will cease to be made. None of us really knows what that point is, or at what production level. But there are many things one used to be able to buy that are no longer available, and people just have to live with it.

The real problem is not this or that about film. The real problem is that too few value the type of image-making that is possible only with large format. Thus, there is no market effort to produce large-format digital solutions. We need a period like back in the 60's, when Calumet was selling view cameras hand over fist to amateurs, because that was a way for an amateur to achieve really high image quality modestly. As long as the definition of "really high image quality" can be attained by current small-format offerings, there will be no market drive to produce a large-format alternative.

Thus, it's not the film we should be advocating. It's the supreme image quality. I haven't a clue what might make that advocacy effective in the general market.

Rick "for whom the problem is too little commitment by the public to the image aesthetic that requires large format" Denney

[Steve Smith]

This notion of home coating is nuts.

Possibly but there are plenty of nutty people around who like to do nutty things. Some more nutty than coating their own film!


Steve.

[Sevo]

Yes, a home coating machine can be made. But is the appropriate polyester base material available? At all?

That is the most trivial part to it - "FILM" as a generic object is a rampant technology in biosciences and electronics, to the degree that photographic film production sites usually end up being sold off for conversion to some non-photographic process (see the fate of Polaroid). Accordingly, polyester and acetate bases are cheap and easy to get hold of.

Photo grade non-fogging gelatin (fifty years ago it needed a special diet for the cattle, and even now it will at the very least need very special processing and additives), sensitizers, stabilizers and dyes are more likely to raise in price, as many of them have no bulk use outside film photography.

[Sevo]

We are absolutely dependent on the color film industry. We should not pretend otherwise.

Agreed. And what's more - colour, that odd old tri-chrome thing, shares most of its many inherent limitations with current digital colour processes. Sooner or later somebody will market a superior process - and he probably will use digital for that...

[rdenney]

Possibly but there are plenty of nutty people around who like to do nutty things. Some more nutty than coating their own film!

Of course. But fringe nuts do not a sustainable market make.

And doing consistent, high-quality color might challenge the technology available to nuts, however nutty.

Not everyone wants that hand-made look.

Rick "nuttier than most" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Of course. But fringe nuts do not a sustainable market make.

But home coating does not need a sustainable market. Each nut making enough film for his* own needs. (* not her as woman are too intelligent to even bother!).


Steve.

[rdenney]

But home coating does not need a sustainable market. Each nut making enough film for his* own needs. (* not her as woman are too intelligent to even bother!).

Please outline for me what it would take to coat color emulsions at home.

Rick "who was NOT talking about black and white" Denney

[Steve Smith]

Please outline for me what it would take to coat color emulsions at home.

I don't know. I was only considering the actual coating process. I'm sure though that if people can make black and white emulsions at home then they should also be able to make them colour sensitive.


Steve.

[Brian C. Miller]

Home coating, technically speaking, is being done currently by wet collodion and a couple of other processes. A machine to coat a polyester base costs about $5,000 in parts. There's a guy in Australia (retired Kodak engineer) who built one, using parts from a scrapped Kodak coating machine. The film produced is quite good. The engineer wants to recreate Kodachrome.

Producing B&W film isn't difficult. The color film is what is difficult. I don't think that we have squat for a chance to create a modern color emulsion. A Kodakchrome work-alike might be done, and some guys in France have had some success with recreating Autochrome film.

But these are not what would "save" film, let alone "challenge" digital imaging.

Our society does not orient itself to visual arts. We orient ourselves to audio arts, i.e., music. The news is all about what tunes you can put on your devices, the RIAA suing individuals sharing music, and how Apple has put music in the "cloud." There aren't any such headlines about photographs. Photographs and paintings are used to fill up space on a wall. People go nuts about a big television or stereo, but not about a big photograph or painting.

[BetterSense]

From http://medfmt.8k.com/brondeath.html


Should we be worried about the consumer masses going digital?

Optimists will predict the explosion of computerized digital cameras and online image creation will leave many digital photo users wanting more quality, and upgrading to real film and SLR cameras. Surely some users will make this transition, but will it be enough to sustain the photoindustry and our hobby?

How cute.

[Brian C. Miller]

Please outline for me what it would take to coat color emulsions at home.

Rick "who was NOT talking about black and white" Denney

APUG thread: Film coating machine (homemade) on Flickr (http://www.apug.org/forums/forum205/45479-film-coating-machine-homemade-flickr.html)
The thread goes into what needs to be done for color. If the dyes and other chemicals are available, the film base is run in a loop, with each layer being deposited in succession. A larger machine could deposit all the layers at the same time, or run with fewer passes.

[dwross]

But home coating does not need a sustainable market. Each nut making enough film for his* own needs. (* not her as woman are too intelligent to even bother!).Steve.

Then count me among the unintelligent minority of my gender:). I coat my own dry plates, LF film and roll film (120, 620, 127, and 828.)

If you have a moment or two to read my blather on the subject, start here: http://thelightfarm.com/Map/BitsAndPieces/16Mar2010/EmulsionBlog.htm

Denise

[Drew Wiley]

Just getting back to this. Yes smaller lots of certain bases can be obtained; but large
or small requires some looking around, potentially worldwide. Properly preparing or
"subbing" the base is more difficult. Coating machines can be outright purchashed new
(big bucks) or made if you have reasonable machinist skills and a clean room to use it
in. Several people have done it, and it is a tempting option at least for color carbon
printers. Making color film in a personal lab would be a nightmare.

[Steve Smith]

Then count me among the unintelligent minority of my gender:). I coat my own dry plates, LF film and roll film

I know but I'm too polite to describe you as a nut. I have looked through your website before and know that you are comitted to producing and improving emulsions for real whereas most of us in this thread are just theorising and speculating. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I enjoy discussing things I am interested in but will probably never do myself and at the moment, emulsion making and coating fits this description.
If someone else wanted to make the emulsion though, I think I could make a coating machine.
Last month at work, I built a machine to screen print heating elements onto 3" diameter cylinders and I think a coating machine would present a similar level of challenges.


Steve.

[rdenney]

Last month at work, I built a machine to screen print heating elements onto 3" diameter cylinders and I think a coating machine would present a similar level of challenges.

Coating requires chemical processes and raw materials, a suitable location, and acceptable machinery. Skill at constructing one of these does not necessarily solve the problems with the others, as you hint. Also, the coating machines used in the industry must have the received wisdom of generations of development, which you would need to access to avoid running down the same blind alleys they did.

But the real difficulty for color materials are the chemical processes and raw materials. People who speculate that it is doable at home just because Kodachrome was first produced in a small shop miss a couple of important points: 1.) that first Kodachrome did not have an acceptable cost in order to achieve a sustainable price point (this has been said), and 2.) that first Kodachrome probably sucked in terms of effectiveness and consistency. All those generations of development were aimed at a production capability that could hit a cost target and maintain a quality model.

Most of the home-coated photography I've seen looks like it was home coated. In fact, the driving reason for most to do their own coating has been to achieve that look. Very few who shoot in color will want that look.

Yes, anything can be done if there is a will and a large sack o'cash. That's why I keep returning to the word "sustainable". For a sustainable market to exist, there must be a a stable balance between demand and supply. We don't have that now so we don't know what is going to happen. We won't achieve that with home coatings, that's for sure. The solution must lie elsewhere. That elsewhere might be digital, because that's where current technological developments will support the effort, if there is support for anything in large format.

For that support to exist, however, there must be a demand for the type of photography and photographic production values that require large-format. That demand also seems to be shrinking, and I think that poses a far greater risk to a sustained supply of the materials we need.

Rick "not willing to give up color" Denney

[dwross]

I know but I'm too polite to describe you as a nut. I have looked through your website before and know that you are comitted to producing and improving emulsions for real whereas most of us in this thread are just theorising and speculating. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I enjoy discussing things I am interested in but will probably never do myself and at the moment, emulsion making and coating fits this description.
If someone else wanted to make the emulsion though, I think I could make a coating machine.
Last month at work, I built a machine to screen print heating elements onto 3" diameter cylinders and I think a coating machine would present a similar level of challenges.


Steve.

Ah, go ahead. You can call me a nut :). I don't see one when I look in the mirror, but I'm coming to terms with that being the impression.

Re theorizing: Absolutely! I love a good 'what-if, maybe-could' discussion -- although I've been trying to stay away from them because no one seems to want to hear that making b/w emulsions (which can hardly be distinguished from commercial) is very, very doable. Mostly, people have taken to pretending I haven't posted. Thanks for your response. I just couldn't resist the quip about women being 'too intelligent' to make emulsions. Funny, that, but also a bit of the attitude that keeps women from contributing to forums like this. It's not so much a reluctance to wade into controversy (although, I'll never, as long as I live, understand the pure entertainment value it seems to hold for some) rather than an implacable assumption that women aren't involved in the scientific/technological/geek aspects of our craft. Somehow the assumption of "aren't" morphs into "shouldn't be".

I'd love to see someone making a coating machine. If you find an emulsion maker to partner with, I hope you will contribute an article to The Light Farm.

Denise (just a geek having a great time)

[Drew Wiley]

There's a pretty good description by Jim Browning of his home-made coating machine
over on the dye transfer forum, along with a description for making monochrome matrix
film. He had since sold this machine to a carbon printing setup. I have no doubt I could
make a SIMPLE coating machine for under ten grand. But why? The idea that anyone short of industrial infrastructure could personally make something capable of repeatable quality color film is lunacy. You simply don't know what is involved. Short
run research-grade coaters exist and can be subcontacted or bought. You can get a
custom run of a monochrome film, for example, for a mere million bucks or so. Any takers?

[dwross]

You can get a custom run of a monochrome film, for example, for a mere million bucks or so. Any takers?

How about $7 in materials and less than $300 in lab equipment for ten rolls of 120 film? (made some this morning -- shooting this weekend.) Second recipe cooking today for a dozen whole plate glass negatives.

Whether or not the time and effort is worthwhile to any given photographer is a very legitimate topic of discussion. Whether or not it can be done -- with less effort, expense and equipment than most gourmet cooking -- is a question answered.

d

[sanking]

There's a pretty good description by Jim Browning of his home-made coating machine
over on the dye transfer forum, along with a description for making monochrome matrix
film. He had since sold this machine to a carbon printing setup. I have no doubt I could
make a SIMPLE coating machine for under ten grand. But why? The idea that anyone short of industrial infrastructure could personally make something capable of repeatable quality color film is lunacy. You simply don't know what is involved. Short
run research-grade coaters exist and can be subcontacted or bought. You can get a
custom run of a monochrome film, for example, for a mere million bucks or so. Any takers?

Jim Browning's coating machine wound up at Photographers Formulary. It could be used to coat carbon tissue and I experimented with it briefly there a couple of years ago, but so far as I know it has not been used by the PF for that purpose as of yet. The problem with any coating machine is that in order to make it worthwhile you need to produce a lot of coated material, and coating with gelatin requires a fair amount of skill, some art, and close control of temperature.

In reality a coating machine is not necessary to make really high quality carbon tissue for personal use. For my own fine art use I can make as much high quality tissue in a day (14-16 25X30" sheets) as I will use in printing for two weeks or so.

Sandy

[Drew Wiley]

Sandy - I'm well aware that monochrome carbon tissue can be coated using simplified
means, but can't imagine tri or quad color work being done in any significant scale or efficiency that way. I wonder how Tod Gangler and certain others do it? I have been
around commercial processes like Evercolor, who had the tissue coating contracted out
at considerable expense, and I believe that Ataraxia did the same. This is a bit off-topic for this particular forum rather than your own, but I don't want to get into much
detail here, just the general concept. Same goes for color film - I can't imagine anyone
sucessfully doing it in-house without a serious prototyping coater. The tintype look is
a whole different animal. There used to be a fellow in SF and one in Sacto who could
predictably make well-balanced hand-coated color carbons, but these were relatively
small prints and took about a week apiece to make.

[paulr]

Possibly but there are plenty of nutty people around who like to do nutty things. Some more nutty than coating their own film!

I've noticed what seems like a resurgence in wet plate photography. By resurgence, I occasional mention of a dozen or so people doing it. Which is a dozen more than I knew about in the 90s.

I wonder how much of this is iconoclasm ... getting as far as possible from today's technological mainstream ... and also if some of it is a kind of apocalyptic digging-in, preparing for the day film is gone or unafordable.

[Drew Wiley]

I don't see anything nutty about handcoating. Photographers have been hand-coating
papers like albumen, pt/pd, and carbon for some time. Coating film is just another option to experiment for fun, effect, or maybe nostalgia for things past. But it certainly
doesn't come close to replicating the consistent quality of what we've come to expect
from industrial manufacturers and the convenience of simply opening a box of film.
There's a lot more to it than mere recipes, and as I've suggested above, I doubt anyone is doing it with color film except perhaps to come up with a new experimental recipe which could hypothetically be industrially fine-tuned and produced later. The
odds of this kind of thing happening are very very small. The big boys have their own
infrustructure and r&d momentum, and not much financial incentive to start from scratch.

[Brian C. Miller]

I wonder how much of this is iconoclasm ... getting as far as possible from today's technological mainstream ... and also if some of it is a kind of apocalyptic digging-in, preparing for the day film is gone or unafordable.

Paul, are you suggesting that there should be a Society for Creative Anachronism (http://www.sca.org/) for photographers?

Oh, right, Large Format Photography Forum... ;) :D

Part of it is the "I can do that too!" fun part of a hobby. Since some of our members build their own cameras, why not also have some fun making your own film? I'm sure there are painters who make their own paints and brushes.


I doubt anyone is doing it with color film ...

AFAIK the only two people who have experimented with actual color film are the two retired photo engineers on APUG.

[Drew Wiley]

Yeah Brian, I'm aware of those folks too. Experimenting or protyping with an idea and
then making something practical with it are two different things. But at least these guys have the right kind of background. Even with monochrome, I don't think there's anyone around who's going to come up with a replacement for that Pan F roll I need
for a test this weekend.

[dwross]

Yeah Brian, I'm aware of those folks too. Experimenting or protyping with an idea and
then making something practical with it are two different things. But at least these guys have the right kind of background. Even with monochrome, I don't think there's anyone around who's going to come up with a replacement for that Pan F roll I need
for a test this weekend.

Whoa, boy. If you think the battle between analog and digital is something, you might not have ever stepped into the one between scientists and engineers. I think a biologist (moi) has a reasonable chance of understanding gelatin and organic dyes. But, you're right, I won't have your Pan F ready by this weekend. Bear in mind though, a year ago the retired Kodak engineer who lives at APUG said, with certainty, that making roll film was next to impossible for a home darkroom. I can't speak for engineers, but the word 'impossible' is catnip to scientists :). And, most artists don't much care one way or another about 'practical'. 'Impractical' is another word for market niche. There are many who might say that Cibachrome printing is impractical. I'm glad you've ignored them.

[sanking]

Sandy - I'm well aware that monochrome carbon tissue can be coated using simplified
means, but can't imagine tri or quad color work being done in any significant scale or efficiency that way. I wonder how Tod Gangler and certain others do it?


Drew,

Guess you missed my link to Tod Gangler's coating method. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHLeUm0M_KU

This is how he does it. I have seen him do it this way.

Basically, whether you want to do monochrome or quad-color work, level of difficulty is about the same in making the tissue.

Sandy

[D. Bryant]

Drew,

Guess you missed my link to Tod Gangler's coating method. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHLeUm0M_KU

This is how he does it. I have seen him do it this way.

Basically, whether you want to do monochrome or quad-color work, level of difficulty is about the same in making the tissue.

Sandy

This is great Sandy thanks for posting that link.

Don Bryant

[Drew Wiley]

Yes, Thank you, Sandy ... but what I had in mind is if anyone had put together a
personal research-grade machine, something suitable for small-batch multi-thin-coat work for example, certainly a step up from Jim's basic slot coater. I never built mine due to space constraints (would need another dedicated clean room). I've got way too many irons in the fire now.

[sanking]

Drew,

Did you ever look at the size and weight of Jim's coating machine? Hard to see how you go up another size, say 2X or 3X, as it weighs several hundred pounds as it is. My memory is that his machine allowed up to about 40" X 50" in coating size . Hard to imagine how you would go large than that without dedicating a factory size building to the endeavor.

However, the point is that Tod Gangler's coating method, and the methods I use in coating for carbon (which involve either threaded rod coating, or the use smooth rods and magnetic sign material), are as efficient as Jim Browning's machine, even at 40"X50" in size, unless your intention is mass production. And one could do this just as easily for color as for monochrome.

Sandy






Yes, Thank you, Sandy ... but what I had in mind is if anyone had put together a
personal research-grade machine, something suitable for small-batch multi-thin-coat work for example, certainly a step up from Jim's basic slot coater. I never built mine due to space constraints (would need another dedicated clean room). I've got way too many irons in the fire now.

[Drew Wiley]

Cibachome??? I can do that in my sleep. Everything is relative. Sometimes one still
stumbles onto old Kodak sales brochures stating how easy Dye Transfer printing is
for the home hobbyist (well it was, at least compared to Carbro); then Ciba came
along as a high-quality challenge to that, and was also marketed according to its
ease. Now everyone just wants to push some buttons and have it happen. But when
someone says something CAN'T be done, I also take it as something like a dueling
challenge. I was told repeatedly by certain very experience dye transfer printers that there are steps to the process which simply cannot be replicated due to the
withdrawl of essential products from the market, but then some of us have discovered alternate ways of doing these things that are even better than the conventional methods in days of yore. Finding the time to do them is another subject. And speaking of gelatin, there's a wealth of information in the medical field
that the photo field has hardly tapped into (doesn't mean all potentially alternative
chemistry and so forth is either safe or practical to work with, but does mean that
pathways to whole new kinds of emulsions are potentially out there). But for the
moment, I've got to get back to the dkrm to do things with ordinary C-prints that
people say can't be done.

[rdenney]

Cibachome??? I can do that in my sleep. Everything is relative. Sometimes one still
stumbles onto old Kodak sales brochures stating how easy Dye Transfer printing is
for the home hobbyist (well it was, at least compared to Carbro); then Ciba came
along as a high-quality challenge to that, and was also marketed according to its
ease.

Cibachrome itself is easy--as easy as a C-print. The difficulty in using Cibachrome, though, it's in processing the sheet. It's in the contrast masking, which Drew knows as well as anyone. If no contrast masking is needed for an image, then the Ciba itself wasn't that hard.

Back in my college days, me and another guy ran a little rogue processing "company" in our spare time. We served a few rodeo photographers (this was Texas, after all) who needed to be able to show proofs the week following the rodeo. We'd do all the work on a Sunday night, from C-41 of 120 film to contact C-prints. I also made very fancy Cibachrome report covers for some of the researcher types at that university, and that often required me to process my own E-6 (E-4 at the time). All that gave me some good production-level experience with color.

Then I tried to take it to the next level and do fine prints with Ciba, and ran headlong into the requirements for contrast management using masks. I never got very good at that! And then the real world struck and I lost access to that darkroom. I did black and white in my own darkrooms after that and was content to let pro labs do color.

I found that I really enjoy the field work. The technical details of darkroom work were always a drudgery for me, and with color especially because it required so much precision. I would never consider coating my own materials.

But eventually I may be forced to buy some medium-format digital back and start stitching, if that's the best technology can do for us.

Rick "who has considered a scanning back, too, but they are still too pricy and limited" Denney

[paulr]

Paul, are you suggesting that there should be a Society for Creative Anachronism (http://www.sca.org/) for photographers?

Oh, right, Large Format Photography Forum... ;) :D

Good point. We'll know we're all the way there when people start point and clap and call us Photography Re-enactors.


Part of it is the "I can do that too!" fun part of a hobby. Since some of our members build their own cameras, why not also have some fun making your own film?

Sure, I'm just wondering if we're seeing a new trend that goes beyond that.

[Andre Noble]

I see all of us serious film users in the next 18 to 24 months doing some serious stockpiling of sheet film as the end of color sheet film is closing in on us way faster than most on this forum want to admit.

[Steve Smith]

I can't speak for engineers, but the word 'impossible' is catnip to scientists :).

I'm an engineer. If someome says that something is impossible or can't be done in a particular way, that makes me want to do it.


Steve.

[dwross]

I'm an engineer. If someome says that something is impossible or can't be done in a particular way, that makes me want to do it.


Steve.

I always keep my eyes open for your posts about camera building. Really excellent. But, I particularly enjoy and learn from your posts about screen printing technology and materials and how they might cross over to silver gelatin photographic emulsions.

[Drew Wiley]

Sandy - my 8x10 colorhead weighs nearly a hundred lbs and is connected to a block and tackle pulley system for period maintenance. My vacuum easel weighs a couple
hundred pounds. My negative carrier stage weighs a couple hundred pounds and is built
hopefully bombproof for a fairly heavy earthquake (a distinct possibility around here).
Making a coating machine that weighs a ton or two is no big deal. I'd want a self-heated surface polished to within a few thousandths, leveled with equal accuracy, and with a permanent teflon coating. No problem at all technically. It can be easily done with the right budget. But I'll never get around to it. I've got a backlog of printing
and mounting that will tie me up until I'm too arthritic to even club a DLSR nerd off the trail with my Ries tripod. But it's still fun to at least vicariously invent these things, just
to keep a bit of spark alive in what's left of my sluggish brain cells.

[Drew Wiley]

Andre - I've already got a freezer. Stockpiling favorite films and papers is nothing new.
They come and go. The problem right now is exactly which to store away; there are so
many to choose from, and if you overdo it, they'll spoil with age before use, especially if a better film comes around! Look at all the new choices just in Kodak color neg sheet film. Doesn't seem like an extinction event is imminent! I''ve heard this kind of talk again and again over the years. Change happens. It always has. But I don't see any common-sense reason to sell off any of my sheet film holders. They'll probably be
useful to somone long after I'm under the dirt, and probably long after most of the
current generation of digital cameras is in the landfill too.

[Steve Smith]

But, I particularly enjoy and learn from your posts about screen printing technology and materials and how they might cross over to silver gelatin photographic emulsions.

I think screen printing could work for emulsion on paper but probably not for film. When you look closely at printed ink which has been through a screen, you can usually see a witness mark of the mesh. If this was a film it would be enlarged at the printing stage and would be more obvious. However, for a paper, I'm not sure if it would matter - it would be like having a textured paper.

Also I don't know much about viscosity of emulsion at varying temperatures. Is it possible to coat (or print) and then get it to a suitable temperature for it to re-flow?

I'm not really an expert in screen printing as I'm an electronic and mechanical engineer who works for a company which specialises in industrial precision printing. Our products include conductive silver on polyester flexible circuits, membrane switch control panels and medical sensors such as those used to measure blood sugar for diabetes.

However, I have probably subliminally learned many aspects of screen printing over the last 20+ years and I can do it fairly competently myself both by hand and machine as I like to be able to use all of the machinery in our factory rather than just sit at a desk and get other people to do it.

Something else which might be of benefit to emulsion coating is surface treatment. We buy our polyester sometimes as raw material but often with an ink receptive coating or treatment to aid adhesion of the ink. I'm fairly certain that this would translate well to emulsion coating. Do you have materials with similar coatings/treatments?


Steve.

[dwross]

Steve

I agree with you about paper vs. film with screen printing. Strictly a gut feeling, though. I've never personally done any screen printing.

Theoretically, you could reheat the emulsion once it was on the paper. Each heating cycle introduces changes to the sensitivity curve, though, so it would take a new set of trial and error with rigorous controls and observation to standardize things. Practically, it might be a different situation. Paper emulsions are usually hardened in the last step before coating. Chrome alum might give you some re-melt lead time, but glyoxal (my preference) works very fast. Timing would be tricky. Interesting problem, though, with real potential. I hope someone wants to tackle it.

Polyester subbed for inks doesn't seem to work (at least, solvent-based inks.) You need a material subbed for hydrophilic coatings. Besides the material that Photographers' Formulary sells, the only one I've been able to find to work with is Dupont Melinex 535. If push ever came to shove and 535 wasn't available, I'd return to subbing acetate, vis 1920's. I'd have to build a barn far away from the house first. Acetate subbing is on the very, very short list of smells my husband can't stand!:)

Denise

[Steve Smith]

Whilst our conductive silver inks are solvent based, our dielectrics and graphic colours are now UV cured which needs a different coating so they might be worth trying.


Steve.

[dwross]

Steve,

I always keep my eyes open for new materials. Thanks for the tip! Do you know (if it's not an industrial secret) what the material is?

If you were closer, I'd ask you to snag a small piece to send me, but maybe you can find the time for a quick test there. Make a 10% solution of gelatin and at about 34 degrees make four test patches. 1) just pour a small puddle, 2) smear out a small puddle with a glass rod held at the slightest angle from one end touching the film, 3) and 4) repeat 1 and 2 with a couple of drops PhotoFlo/~250 ml melted gelatin. The two observations you're looking for are how smoothly the gelatin went on, and if it sticks to the film after it's dry. Depending on how well or how dismally the film preforms, you'll probably think of different things to try.

Best of days,
d

[Steve Smith]

Might be easier if I just send you some!

On Monday I will see what we have with coatings for UV cured inks and sort through them. Most will be unsuitable as they will have textures on the non-printed side but we should have some optically clear gloss as well.


Steve.

[dwross]

Thanks! Address sent pm.