Possible new film

[Jeff Dexheimer]

By my very nature I am an entrupanurer. I am always dreaming up business ideas and products. I also have a degree in chemistry and have plenty of engineering connections. After starting LF I realize there is still plenty of need for quality film products, especially in the LF and MF arenas.

In the intrest of feeling out the market before I invest a substantial of time, money and energy, how open would you be to a new brand of film?

Assume the film is competativly priced and available in a few different flavors. ie color neg, and different iso's.

Also, if I were to start something of this nature, what would you like to see in a film and film company? That is, what characteristics are important to you?

[John NYC]

You should get the book "Making Kodak Film" by Robert Shanebrook and see what is involved. It is a very substantial effort to make color film.

[ConnorR]

I'd like to see you re-create Kodachrome.

[Jay DeFehr]

Good luck, Jeff.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

I would defiantly start with black & white, but the difficultly is not a concern at the moment. I am more concerned about marketability

[BrianShaw]

If it is something akin to the characteristics of PlusX or SuperXX I'd buy!

[John NYC]

I would defiantly start with black & white, but the difficultly is not a concern at the moment. I am more concerned about marketability

For black and white, I can't personally see switching from Ilford. I love HP5, FP4 and Delta 100, and they are all still available for 8x10 on down to the smaller formats I shoot. Those three cover any imaginable need I have for b&w film in the absence of Kodak.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

If it is something akin to the characteristics of PlusX or SuperXX I'd buy!

Thanks! This is what I need to know. What do people want in a film? both B&W and color?

If I am going to do this I want to create a great product.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

For black and white, I can't personally see switching from Ilford. I love HP5, FP4 and Delta 100, and they are all still available for 8x10 on down to the smaller formats I shoot. Those three cover any imaginable need I have for b&w film in the absence of Kodak.

Also, thanks! If people are happy with their current offerings that is just as important.

[Greg Blank]

Hi Jeff,

Think 800 ISO speed with the grain structure of 100 or 200 ISO.....then you would be doing something many folks here would purchase even at a higher price regardless of what other makers are producing. I like B&W. Some times C-Neg.

I put the most important thought in my first sentence and if you chose read the rest it may help also:)

I have tested many films over the years at the wholesale level and have quite a bit of experience dealing with photographers from the stand point of customer service and answering technical questions related to those films. To be blunt: photographers are some of the most pediantic customers you will ever meet, given to all sorts of bizzare and fallacy driven ideals related to what thier "vision" is and how the product being sold should perform to manifest that vision. Would I personally buy your film to give it a try? Sure I would as would most anyone here on this group. For me to purchase said film over say Ilford, it would have to be a unique product that fills a need. My suggestion.....maybe a 400-800 speed Black and white film that has resolution on the order of Tmax 400 or Ilford Delta 400. Ilford discontinued 400 Delta a few years back, It was unique for me in that I found it took the PMK developer stain unlike the Kodak films. It was a very resolute film for 400 and allowed about an extra stop of exposure which is a plus for 4x5 shooters, "the majority of LF users" -because you could enlarge it to 16x20 without grain.

[Steve Smith]

I would defiantly start with black & white

Yes, definitely start defiantly!


Steve.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Yes, definitely start defiantly!


Steve.
haha, I like to be defiant

[Gene McCluney]

Well, all technical considerations aside, well-loved films that are no longer available in sheet film, but "old school" in make-up would be such films as DoubleX, PlusX, PanatomicX. perhaps soon to be gone Tri-X.

[Ari]

Aside from bringing back Polaroid Type 55, I'd agree with Greg, and say there's a void to be filled in high-speed, fine-grained colour negative film for LF.
Maybe 800 or even 1600 ISO.

[Keith Fleming]

I would recommend starting with a b&w film, ISO 200 to 400, that is relatively "easy" and "economical" to manufacture. Concentrate on super quality control and build a customer base of enthusiastic, satisfied users. Then branch out to other speeds following that same mode. Let your b&w sales justify the move into color.

Keith

[Peter Gomena]

Wait a few months and you may be able to buy Kodak's film operations for a song.

Whatever you might produce, it needs to be just as good as or better than any current product from the three major manufacturers, it will need equal quality control and consistency, and must be competitively priced. If you can't meet these criteria, photographers will substitute the nearest equivalent film from another manufacturer.

Anything less will put your products into the realm of the second-tier manufacturers, whose products often present a perceived quality risk only the price-sensitive want to take. You will be hard pressed to compete on price, since these manufacturers are well-established. If these manufacturers produce your film for you, you share the public perception of their products and the perceived quality risk.

Remember that the cheapest part of any photographic undertaking is the film. Few experienced film photographers will risk potential film quality problems over proven performance.

Peter Gomena

[Jeff Dexheimer]

All good so far. It sounds like there is a market for certain types of film.

Just to add, right now I am only doing market research to determine if making film is profitable venture.

As of now I plan on making a few B&W emulsions to test. Hearing what you have to say is helpful in determining what I should make.

The best thing I have going for me is that my R&D cost will be almost nothing. I have full access to all the lab equipment I will need, plus a low cost chemical supplier.

Keep your thoughts coming. The more ideas the better.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Wait a few months and you may be able to buy Kodak's film operations for a song.

Whatever you might produce, it needs to be just as good as or better than any current product from the three major manufacturers, it will need equal quality control and consistency, and must be competitively priced. If you can't meet these criteria, photographers will substitute the nearest equivalent film from another manufacturer.

Anything less will put your products into the realm of the second-tier manufacturers, whose products often present a perceived quality risk only the price-sensitive want to take. You will be hard pressed to compete on price, since these manufacturers are well-established. If these manufacturers produce your film for you, you share the public perception of their products and the perceived quality risk.

Remember that the cheapest part of any photographic undertaking is the film. Few experienced film photographers will risk potential film quality problems over proven performance.

Peter Gomena
Thanks Peter, you make a good point. It will take plenty of time to develop and perfect the process. I do understand the competition for quality film is high and therefore I intend to create a product with outstanding quality. If I can't do that, then I will leave it up to the current film makers.

[jp]

I'm happy with my normal B&W film choices. Unusual is the place to build a new niche market.

I'd suggest helping out the new55 project... Or a IR film, or a 4x5 film with the same spectral response as pre-panchromatic early 20th century look.

[Paul Fitzgerald]

"If it is something akin to the characteristics of PlusX or SuperXX I'd buy!"

+1

If you could make T-max 400 with the spectral sensitivity of the classic X films it would be fine. Having a shoulder to the HD curve would not be a bad thing.

Scan-able, wet print-able and no UV blockers for alt process.

Grain, it's supposed to be there.

[Brian C. Miller]

What about having somebody coat your emulsion for you?

I'd like to see a high-speed B&W film, like 3200. Ilford will custom cut their roll film, like Delta 3200, into 4x5 or 8x10 sizes, but for one person the cost is too much and the quantity is too huge.

IR like HIE takes special dyes, and so far nobody has come up with a real substitute. All current products currently fall short.

The New55 project is actually ready to move into production, but I'm sure they'd still appreciate help.

[Fred L]

A 1600 or 3200 speed film in 120, 4x5 or 8x10 would rock my lf world.

or something like Panatomic X or APX 25 ;)

[Noah A]

Of course I'm biased as a color neg shooter. However there are many current options for B&W film and only one in the US for color neg, and it may not be around for long.

So there may be an opportunity to fill a real void in the market. Portra 160 is beautiful, so clone that, sell it in 50- or even 100- sheet boxes and I'd buy it...

[Kirk Gittings]

I would think that trying to copy any recent film would bring up enormous legal issues with patents making the whole enterprise a bit of a nightmare.

[John Kasaian]

Between Foma, Ilford, Efke and Orwo there is no shortage of quality s-l-o-w sheet film emulsions. IMHO Foma 400 has yet to prove it's mettle in sheets and the only other fast films I know of are HP5+ and Delta, so Ilford has that end of the market covered---which should be a concern to us all should any misfortune should befall Ilford.

Aside from going head to head with Ilford on the fast end, I'd think a quality true 200 ISO like the old Forte or perhaps a good TXP replica would do well if the price was reasonable, especially if the reciprocity characteristics were less daunting than Fomapan 100.
YMMV

[ROL]

By my very nature I am an entrupanurer.

Yes, I see. I believe you meant entremanure? :rolleyes:

[Mike Anderson]

Maybe making an extreme or unusual film would be easier to market than trying to make a more conventional product that competes with Ilford's and Fuji's. Extremely high contrast, extremely grainy, weird color shifts or something that appeals to the Holga crowd (in which case you can save on QA :)).

...Mike

[mlatterich]

Most of my major film needs are currently met, but I could not live without Velvia 50 and Astia 100F, should they ever be discontinued.

I would buy, TriX, IR HIE and Aerochrome equivalents in large quantities, if you were to make it available.

[false_Aesthetic]

I want a fast LF film in 5x7".

Color would be diggiddy dank yo

[adam satushek]

Of course I'm biased as a color neg shooter. However there are many current options for B&W film and only one in the US for color neg, and it may not be around for long.

So there may be an opportunity to fill a real void in the market. Portra 160 is beautiful, so clone that, sell it in 50- or even 100- sheet boxes and I'd buy it...

I'm sure Kirk is right that there are legal ramifications with copying recent films.....but if Portra 160 goes away I for one will need a replacement. No offense to anyone, but I personally have no interest in shooting black and white unless its 3 negs with RGB filters to combine in PS to make a color image....but i really hope it does not come to that.....

[Roger Cole]

What about having somebody coat your emulsion for you?

I'd like to see a high-speed B&W film, like 3200. Ilford will custom cut their roll film, like Delta 3200, into 4x5 or 8x10 sizes, but for one person the cost is too much and the quantity is too huge.

IR like HIE takes special dyes, and so far nobody has come up with a real substitute. All current products currently fall short.

The New55 project is actually ready to move into production, but I'm sure they'd still appreciate help.

3200, even something like Delta 3200 which is really 1000 with low contrast so very pushable, would be interesting in LF sheets.

HIE and Type 55 definitely but both have special challenges. If HIE were easy to make Efke would be making it instead of IR film that as an effective filtered speed of 1.5-3, as Brian says.


A 1600 or 3200 speed film in 120, 4x5 or 8x10 would rock my lf world.

or something like Panatomic X or APX 25 ;)

There might be a market for a slow film in 4x5 (but Adox and Efke have them, no idea if they're any good as I haven't tried them) but TMX is so good, as long as Kodak is around there isn't much use in going slower. Delta 100, while not as fine grained as TMX, probably also beats old style 25-50 speed emulsions, probably with the exception of the lamented APX 25. Some would like that but it's just too slow for me.


Of course I'm biased as a color neg shooter. However there are many current options for B&W film and only one in the US for color neg, and it may not be around for long.

So there may be an opportunity to fill a real void in the market. Portra 160 is beautiful, so clone that, sell it in 50- or even 100- sheet boxes and I'd buy it...

Portra 400 and Ektar.

There just don't seem to me to be any real "holes" in B&W. Even if Kodak goes away I think pursuading Ilford to bring back Delta 400 (and maybe XP2 Super as well) in sheets would have more chance of success and be far easier than making something like TMY-2. Not that Delta 400 is a replacement for TMY-2 (before I get outraged comments telling me that.) I know it isn't, but it's finer grained than old style films of 400 speed.

There's a lot missing or potentially about to be missing in color, not so much in black and white which is well supplied. Make something like Astia. I just shot my first roll of it in 120, having used it some in 35mm, and it's such a lovely film, a real sham to lose it. OTOH it isn't going to be wet printable without internegs now that Ilfochrome is gone, so maybe bring back type R paper. I know I keep saying that, but I miss it. :(

[Andrew O'Neill]

A film that would behave similar to Kodak IR film. In 4x5 and 8x10.

[Corran]

I'd buy a high-speed (b&w) emulsion in 4x5 (1000 or faster like TMZ, Delta).

[Jim Jones]

As Andrew and Brian said, a real infrared sheet film.

[ConnorR]

Another option would be really slow film. Maybe some iso6 or something. That I would be interested in.

[Roger Cole]

Another option would be really slow film. Maybe some iso6 or something. That I would be interested in.

Why?

Genuinely curious. If you really need film that slow you could get Adox or Efke 25 and use a two stop ND filter. That would give you EI 6, assuming the original rating of 25 is accurate.

That's seriously slow. Motion studies with long shutter speeds in bright sun maybe?

[Vaughn]

I'd like something along the lines of Kodak Copy Film -- slow but easily controlled (high) contrast!

[Tom J McDonald]

25 ISO colour film.

[dave_whatever]

For a really niche product, how about a positive b&w E6 film?

[Dcohio]

I too love to dream up business ideas, most of which never leave my head or paper. If I were to undertake something of this nature I would try working with an allready established film manufacturer. Not to rebrand one of theyre products but to parlay off they're experiance and established manufacturing processes. Not to mention that they have allready forked out all the money for equipment. This would also give you an avenue to pursue distribution through one of they're distributors/importers. I personally would love to have a 200-400 iso BW film as well as true 800-1000 iso BW film in 120 up through LG format sizes with ULF special orders. I believe there is a market for such films but in no way see this as a major money maker. QA/QC is where I believe you'd need to concentrate after coming up with your desired product. Just my .2c
Doug

[ConnorR]

Why?

Genuinely curious. If you really need film that slow you could get Adox or Efke 25 and use a two stop ND filter. That would give you EI 6, assuming the original rating of 25 is accurate.

That's seriously slow. Motion studies with long shutter speeds in bright sun maybe?

Definitely, yes.

I love shooting Pan F and routinely use ND filters with it. My reason for suggesting such a slow film is that his product would have to be significantly better or cheaper than the big brands for me, personally, to consider it. There are too many unknowns for someone to risk their photographs to save a couple of bucks or get a slightly more pleasing grain pattern. However, if there was no other alternative, I would absolutely purchase it.

Is such a slow film practical? Not really. I can't imagine a lot of volume would be sold. Which would probably be good at first for a startup business. Do I still want it? Yes, especially because then I can slap my 3 stop ND filter on it and make it ASA .75. And that's just awesome.

[Roger Cole]

Definitely, yes.

I love shooting Pan F and routinely use ND filters with it. My reason for suggesting such a slow film is that his product would have to be significantly better or cheaper than the big brands for me, personally, to consider it. There are too many unknowns for someone to risk their photographs to save a couple of bucks or get a slightly more pleasing grain pattern. However, if there was no other alternative, I would absolutely purchase it.

Is such a slow film practical? Not really. I can't imagine a lot of volume would be sold. Which would probably be good at first for a startup business. Do I still want it? Yes, especially because then I can slap my 3 stop ND filter on it and make it ASA .75. And that's just awesome.

Try shooting paper negatives maybe?

Someone above wanted EI 25 color film. My thought was "just use 100 and a 2 stop ND" but maybe they have in mind using the ND with the 25 as you do.

Me, I'm often annoyed by lack of speed with 400 film in sheets. I'm curious about getting enough folks together to get Ilford to cut some Delta 3200 in sheets.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Wow, Thanks for all the replies. I definitely see there is a market for certain films. If I go ahead with this project this is all good to know.

From my own experience I can also agree there is a need for faster film.

[Drew Wiley]

Just how many millions of dollars can you afford to lose in R&D before you even come up to bat marketing?

[Ben Syverson]

Millions on R&D? Hardly.

To make B&W sheet film, you don't need much more than emulsion, a curtain coater, a roll of plastic base, and a paper cutter. Anything else you add is a bonus to improve the product or ease production.

dexmeister, if you're serious about the project, I recommend taking it to a mechanical engineer who can help you think through the film transport step by step through the coater and drying stage. If you pay an expert to spend 8-10 hours drawing up some preliminary ideas, you can take that to Kickstarter and raise $50,000 in 30 days. That's more than enough to set up a miniature film production line, and it would give you a headstart on marketing.

Once you get the hang of making a simple, consistent product, you can start experimenting with high speed, high silver content, etc.

[Oren Grad]

To make B&W sheet film, you don't need much more than emulsion, a curtain coater, a roll of plastic base, and a paper cutter. Anything else you add is a bonus to improve the product or ease production.

Not if your customers give a hoot about quality. Fotokemika still can't get it right... after how many years in the business? The revival of MCP and MCC production at the InovisCoat facility took a substantial effort even with established infrastructure and experienced staff. Adox/Fotoimpex still hasn't finished debugging renewed APX film production, though part of the delay is due to market conditions - which should itself tell you something.


Once you get the hang of making a simple, consistent product...

That's precisely the problem; it can't be assumed away.

To the OP: Buy and read Robert Shanebrook's book. Then go to APUG and read everything that Ron Mowrey ("Photo Engineer") has ever posted on film manufacture, with special attention to what's entailed in quality control. And Mirko Boddicker ("ADOX Fotoimpex"), too.

[Renedage]

I second the opinion, that with the imminent death of Kodak there will be huge gap in fine-grained iso 400+ films. Ilford may jump in and restart Delta 400, making its ultimate leader in bw films. But even if they brind Delta from dead the price of Ilford in USA will be quite high to give you a chance.

Still Kodak's not dead yet and I think there will be enough of T-MAX films in year of two to satisy the need after it runs out. So you'll have some time.

Wish you great luck.

[Brian C. Miller]

Jeff, have you taken a look at the APUG emulsion forums, and at Dar's site, The Light Farm (http://thelightfarm.com/)? The APUG forums also have a sticky up about a fellow in Australia who built his own emulsion coater from parts of a scrapped Kodak machine.

added:
Here's what Ron Mowrey said about recreating Tri-X (link (http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1282191)):

Even if the formula for Tri-X were to be made public, it is not likely that anyone could produce it. The formula is quite complex and involves many manufacturing steps that just don't work out in small scale. If TriX were easy to make there would be companies making it right now by reverse engineering.

[Oren Grad]

I'm curious about getting enough folks together to get Ilford to cut some Delta 3200 in sheets.

The problem isn't cutting, it's that Delta 3200 has only ever been coated on acetate roll film base, not on polyester sheet film base. Making a sheet film out of it would entail an R&D investment. This has been discussed already with Harman - it's not going to happen.

[Lachlan 717]

I'd wish for a 400asa B&W with no/little reciprocity failure…

Think Fuji Acros 400.

To me, that would be a niche in this arena!

[Drew Wiley]

I recommend going to the Dye Transfer Forum and taking a look at Jim Browning's
relatively simple home coater. That was largely for prototyping a formula and the
machine has since been sold. Past that point the formula was custom run, first by
Efke once, then once or twice on a German coating line. I think each custom run
amounted to about a million dollars in capital, and that was for a relatively simple
black and white film for matrices. I'd imagine that Michael Smith spends a similarly
staggering sum for each production run of silver chloride paper. And these are things
basically pre-ordered and sold at a low profit margin. Now if you want patent protection and the necessary search for the remote possiblity someone hasn't beat
you to it, or won't preempt your own product in the future, that will cost you somewhere between fifty and a hundred grand per patent. Acquiring film base in
volume isn't for the faint-hearted either. The cost of petrochemicals and things like
polyester film stock is climbing very very fast. Then you've got silver and it's wild
price fluctuations. A completely different game than doing a little coating for personal fun use. Multiply all these problems times a hundred, and then you've got
color film.

[Greg Blank]

The way I look at this thread is lots of I wants. But the core issue is what can you do for the man? If you subtract all the OP's posts and just say you would spend say $500 a year on this guys film its not really going to pay him even for B&W. $18,000 maybe some would spend more than $500 per year? So what is it worth to you per year to shoot film?

[Renato Tonelli]

I am daydreaming of Kodachrome, HIE and Color Infrared in 35, 120/220 and LF - perhaps you may be able to purchase those patents.

I spend approx. $1500.+. Per year to purchase film.

[RTucker]

Black&White 220

[Bruce Watson]

I want what I've already got -- 5x4 TMY-2 and 400Portra.

But so what? You'll not get any agreement on what people want. Not in the contentious debate between color negative and color positive films. Not in the debate over ISO. Not in the debate over t-grained or cubic grained or something in between. Etc, etc, etc.

What I'd rather see, is you make a film that *you* want to use. Put your passion in it, built the best film you can make. If people buy it, great. If they don't, then they don't; but do you really want to put your time and effort into making a film that you personally don't like?

[Jeff Dexheimer]

I appreciate every comment, even those that say they have everything they want and those that are telling me this is nearly impossible.

Fact is I thank you and I do realize there are many road blocks to this project. Right now it is simply in a brainstorming phase. That is why I need as much input as possible.

At this time I need to be open to both the possibility that this will and will not work out.

[Wayne]

At this time I need to be open to both the possibility that this will and will not work out.

AS mentioned above talk to Ron Mowry before you invest any more time in what could be just an impossible dream. That's not to discourage you, just to inject some reality into the dream.

[Drew Wiley]

Do you want to do this for profit or for personal interest? It would be extremely difficult to compete with any of the big boys in black and white commercial film or color
film. The future of color darkroom might lie in low volume alternate processes like color
carbon and the dye transfer revival. Not a very good way to make much money, but a
way to revive very high quality imagery. You could put some of your interest in helping
upgrade approaches to these kinds of media rather than starting from scratch with no
defined objective. Just about every alternative black and white process one can think
of has been somehow contemplated by someone as a revival, and the odds of making even temporary money, if any at all, are pretty low in the long run. Make just one mistake on a product you actually sell and you'll be blacklisted. Just reads through
various threads on this forum and then watch the movie "Unforgiven".

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Do you want to do this for profit or for personal interest?

Both, this is how I approach life in general. I believe work should give me personal satisfaction and therefore my life is a business. I think in terms of making the things I enjoy my carer. It is what I am currently doing and what I do with photography.

The reason I want to pursue this is fundamentally personal. I enjoy my chemistry career and designing experiments. I also enjoy photography. This will start out on a hobby scale. I will begin by making film for myself to test and experiment with. Once (if ever) I develop a film I believe could benefit other people I will then offer it to others to do their own tests on. If they respond positively I will consider selling it on a small scale. If that goes well I will build a bigger company.

Notice there are a lot of "if's" in that last paragraph. If at any point this project meets an impassible wall I will stop and pursue something else.

In the curent market there seems to be a lack of certain films, not so much because of a lack of ability to produce those films, but rather a lack of willingness to produce those films. If the market simply does not support these films, then so be it, but I will never know if I don't try.

[Drew Wiley]

I am similar and have spent quite a bit of my life designing strange pieces of custom
equipment for personal use which otherwise would have no mass-market potential, or
by contemplating all kinds of alternative photo projects which I'll never have time to
actually do. One has to pick and choose their battles, at least when it comes to finances and other practical matters. But still it's fun to roam more widely in your imagination. This part of the world is full of such dreamers. There are some folks down
the street who basically invent new processes for high-end clients; they're basically
hired guns for famous artists, aren't accepting new clients at all, and have a minimum
lab fee of around forty grand - and they're having a blast and actually doing very well
financially, even with a bldg lease that's probably twenty grand a month. Last time we
talked about some hi-tech hybrid revival of the Woodbury type. Might happen, might
not. But once someone says "can't" they go right after it. That kind of response takes
quite a bit of flexible capital, however. I'm more interesting in making prints for myself.
Hi-end small batch or prototyping coaters can be outright bought. Last time I looked
they were about fifty grand. I suppose that has gone way up; but then again, someone probably has a used one in storage somewhere they'd love to get rid of cheap.

[Roger Cole]

I second the opinion, that with the imminent death of Kodak there will be huge gap in fine-grained iso 400+ films. Ilford may jump in and restart Delta 400, making its ultimate leader in bw films. But even if they brind Delta from dead the price of Ilford in USA will be quite high to give you a chance.

Still Kodak's not dead yet and I think there will be enough of T-MAX films in year of two to satisy the need after it runs out. So you'll have some time.

Wish you great luck.

Huh?

1. Delta 400 doesn't need to be restarted, it's alive and well in 35mm and 120. They just need to coat it on the right base and sell it in sheets again. I still have most of a frozen 100 sheet box - doing so would be pretty trivial for Ilford if they want to do so, and in fact it was mentioned as a possibility when TMY-2 was discontinued in 8x10. Now that TXP is going away too, maybe it's even more likely. But maybe you meant "bring it back in sheets?" "From the dead" just sounds like you think it's completely gone, which it isn't.

2. Why would the price be any more than current films? Ilford sells sheet film now, and the price is comparable to Kodak (in the US anyway - I understand in the UK it is often paradoxically more.)


Black&White 220

Now THAT would be nice. Preferably Tri-X.

Oh, wait. Sigh. :( At least it isn't gone in 120 yet.

But seriously, it would seem that one of the existing makers that already produce 120 film could spool it in 220 without too much trouble, and I think a lot of us would like that. It's safe to say Kodak isn't going to do it, but Ilford? I'd buy 220 HP5+ (or Delta 400 or even XP2 Super though that one seems less likely.)

[BradS]

At present I will not even buy Efke, Adox or Foma or any of the other second tier suppliers. Using low quality quality materials is a waste of time and resources. As long as Kodak, Ilford and Fuji continue to produce high quality materials, I will buy all of my film stock from them. If they ALL ceased to produce film, then I would consider Efke, Adox and foma (if they were still producing). Shanghai film would be next on my list....then the Russian brands....

[Greg Blank]

At one point Ilford did supply Delta 400 as 220. 220 is typically a much thinner film base than 120. I used the 220 for 6x6 wedding work it made sense at the time.

[PaulSchneider]

Do color/b&w infrared sheet film in 8x10. That would be cool, to be able to shoot like that -> richardmosse.com.

[PaulSchneider]

or do a joint venture with the guys from the impossible project. they have done a fairly well marketing job and might be open to a line of conventional film. or you just migh outright help them to finally get consistent results from their "experimental" polaroid clones

[Brian C. Miller]

Make just one mistake on a product you actually sell and you'll be blacklisted. Just reads through various threads on this forum and then watch the movie "Unforgiven".

Yah, LF photographers just hold a real bad grudge that we'd hire some gunslingers to go and shoot somebody real dead.

Or maybe not.

Jeff, if you had a good replacement policy, then that would be OK. After all, that's the policy that Eastman used when he started Kodak.


At one point Ilford did supply Delta 400 as 220. 220 is typically a much thinner film base than 120. I used the 220 for 6x6 wedding work it made sense at the time.

120 and 220 use the same film.

[Drew Wiley]

Replacement policy ???? Ha Ha Ha. I carried lugged around a camera for two weeks in
the mountains once and they put the chrome film into C41. I got some replacement film free. Did that make me happy? Or you have an appointment with a client and then
have to tell them you blew the shoot because the film was defective? Right on this
very thread there are all kinds of comments how this person or that will never buy from
a particular supplier ever again because of a bad incident. I feel the same way - would
rather spend twice as much on a reliable film than saving money on a questionable one,
though I have sucessfully used certain Eastern European films (Efke 25 is my favorite
roll film for extreme lighting in the mtns). I'd take those Clint Eastwood one-liners
seriously, just before he pulls out the gun!

[Oren Grad]

But seriously, it would seem that one of the existing makers that already produce 120 film could spool it in 220 without too much trouble, and I think a lot of us would like that. It's safe to say Kodak isn't going to do it, but Ilford? I'd buy 220 HP5+ (or Delta 400 or even XP2 Super though that one seems less likely.)

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/27176-220-film-petition-reply-ilford-photo-harman-technology.html

And more recently, after TXP 220 was discontinued:

http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1082178

[Len Middleton]

Someone made the comment about tying inot one of the established players, and that would have considerable merit if there was some way of accessing into their R&D.

The value of the R&D is not just in the successes, but also the dead ends and to those things that did not work due to materials, methods, or markets at the time.

An alternate might be to set up the development lab in the Rochester area depending upon how well Kodak sets up ints NDA (non-disclosure agreements) for their employees and former employees. They may not and should not give out company secrets, but could provide insight on ideas that could be extremely useful.

I am not suggesting you do anything illegal or unethical, but then again ethics is a very personal matter.

Some thoughts,

Len

[Brian C. Miller]

Drew, who got shot?? Of course defective film isn't a good thing, and Frank won't do business with Ilford. I've had problems with both Efke and Foma. But where can I look for IR? Kodak? Konica?

If Kodak film doesn't survive a Chapter 11 bankruptcy (I think it will), then those other suppliers are the ones who are going to be getting the business. Will Jeff be the next Kodak? Or somebody who comes up with a boutique product made by somebody else? Likely the second option. So, yeah, of course there's the good chance of product defects. Just like there's the chance of defects from the Efke and Foma products. I've had 1/2 inch gaps with both manufacturers, in both roll and sheet films. Since you've used Efke, I'm sure that you've had defects in Efke, too. And according to what you've posted, you are still using it.

[Drew Wiley]

Oh, I'm painfully aware at times that Efke has some cleanroom issues. If R25 were made to the quality control standards of Kodak or Ilford, now that would be some
remarkable stuff. But I still find uses for it, even if an occasional shot is lost due to
dust embedded in the emulsion. Sheet film is a different story - can't afford to duplicate shots there! But Bergger 200 was also an EU film and I never had problems
with it. Maybe others have.

[BradS]

which would you prefer?

a crummy film with pretty good quality (Foma)
or
a pretty good film with poor quality (Efke)?
or
Great film with great quality (Kodak, Fuji and Ilford)

[Roger Cole]

http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/27176-220-film-petition-reply-ilford-photo-harman-technology.html

And more recently, after TXP 220 was discontinued:

http://www.apug.org/forums/viewpost.php?p=1082178

Oh well, thanks for the link. Both posts pre-date my re-entry into photography and 220 wasn't something I cared about enough to research in depth. I was glad to see the variety of 120 still available and just sort of shrugged at the lack of 220. My current favorite color film (Portra 400) IS currently available in 220 but costs more than twice as much as the 120 so doesn't make much sense. The 120 pro packs are listed as out of stock and overdue from vendor, I just noticed. :eek: But B&H does have it so hopefully this is a brief snafu maybe occasioned by a bit of a run on Kodak film.

It's really hard to believe that the difference in winding a longer piece of film with less paper mandates a machine that would cost, using today's exchange rate to convert Simon's 300,000 GBP, over $466k, but I accept their word on that.

Besides, it's just a "it would be nice to have" not anything that important. After thinking it over some more I realized the one B&W film I'd most like to have in 220 would be the least likely anyway - Delta 3200. The reasoning is that when I'm shooting that it's usually a night time event and I'll often need more than 12 shots (6x6) for the occasion, and changing film in my Yashicmat 124 isn't that quick and easy even when I can see the spool well. Getting a camera with interchangable backs, or at least pre-loadable inserts (on the agenda for the coming year, along with a faster lens than my Yashicamat) will change that anyway, though.

Otherwise for the most part I'm happier with 12 shots on a roll of 120 than with 36 on a roll of 35mm which often leaves me with film in the camera and the choice to waste it or wait until I find a use for it.


which would you prefer?

a crummy film with pretty good quality (Foma)
or
a pretty good film with poor quality (Efke)?
or
Great film with great quality (Kodak, Fuji and Ilford)

I think everyone prefers the last, as long as it's available.

Another point is that it depends on what one is doing with it. A paid job, Drew's long time spent in the mountains, a big vacation etc. you can be sure I'm going to use the most consistent film I can find. But I shoot plenty of grab bag sort of shots too, around home, not far from home, trying out new things, portraits of friends etc. For that I'll risk lesser QC especially if the film offers some look I can't get elsewhere or even if it's just substantially cheaper.

To the OP - just thought of something. My fiance bought me an old 620 camera for Christmas, knowing I like old cameras and, I'm sure, not familiar with the lomography craze and my, um, opinions about it for the most part. ;) I know I can re-spool 120 but that's going to take some learning. In the meantime, I bought some 120 off eBay on spools modified to work in 620 cameras, or so they say - I've not tried it yet. B&H currently offers 120 film re-spooled onto 620 spools (albeit plastic ones, not as good for your own future re-spooling as metal ones.) Both films cost a bit over twice as much as the regular 120 versions. I just bought a couple of rolls of TMY to play around with the camera. The one she bought me is..I'd have to get it out to remember the model but a very basic fixed focus lens two shutter speed sort of "TLR like" design, but there are many good old Medalists and such around that haven't been converted to 620. There's obviously enough of a market for one eBay supplier and B&H to offer re-spooled film. So how about 620 film? If you could just re-spool existing films and undercut B&H's price you could probably sell it.

[Drew Wiley]

Brad - you forgot about tonality, speed, grain characteristics??? What's "great" for one
set of circumstances might be undesirable for others. But in terms of quality control
per se, Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji are obviously the better choices. Right now nobody seems to be making a true straight line film analogous to Super-XX or Bergger 200.
I often need that kind of characteristic in the toe of the film. Kodak TMY is about the
best substitute I can find, and no telling what will be around when my freezer supply
of that runs out. I also wish Fuji wouldn't make it so damn difficult to acquire 8x10
sheets of ACROS. The lovely orthopan sensitivity isn't available in either Kodak or Ilford.

[BrianShaw]

... so is anyone keeping a scorecard on this question? I see two requests for a straight-line film. Yippee, I think that's the leader in this poll so far.

[BradS]

Brad - you forgot about tonality, speed, grain characteristics??? What's "great" for one
set of circumstances might be undesirable for others. But in terms of quality control
per se, Kodak, Ilford, and Fuji are obviously the better choices. Right now nobody seems to be making a true straight line film analogous to Super-XX or Bergger 200.
I often need that kind of characteristic in the toe of the film. Kodak TMY is about the
best substitute I can find, and no telling what will be around when my freezer supply
of that runs out. I also wish Fuji wouldn't make it so damn difficult to acquire 8x10
sheets of ACROS. The lovely orthopan sensitivity isn't available in either Kodak or Ilford.


YES. Obviously, I vastly over simplified the matter and injected my own prejudices. But, you've come straight to some of the points I wanted the OP to think about.

First, If Kodak, with all of its vast resources and scientific and engineering talent, intellectual property, institutional knowledge, and brand identity cannot make film profitably...I mean really, come-on...I'm not gonna say the rest of what I'm thinking. You get the idea.

Second, Make no mistake, the vultures are already circling around the dieing Kodak. Real entrepreneurs with real money backing them will buy up what is needed to continue whatever film products they think can be produced at a profit. Kodak the company may be broken up and sold in pieces or it may be very significantly restructured, but if there is a viable market for its traditional products, the products will survive. If they cannot be produced profitably....they will not be. Its that simple.

[David Luttmann]

By my very nature I am an entrupanurer. I am always dreaming up business ideas and products. I also have a degree in chemistry and have plenty of engineering connections. After starting LF I realize there is still plenty of need for quality film products, especially in the LF and MF arenas.

In the intrest of feeling out the market before I invest a substantial of time, money and energy, how open would you be to a new brand of film?

Assume the film is competativly priced and available in a few different flavors. ie color neg, and different iso's.

Also, if I were to start something of this nature, what would you like to see in a film and film company? That is, what characteristics are important to you?

An interesting post. Unfortunately, for you to establish an operating color film line, you'd need access to tens of millions for startup costs. Good luck getting people lined up for that. B&W....that's another matter altogether.

[Vlad Soare]

If Kodak, with all of its vast resources and scientific and engineering talent, intellectual property, institutional knowledge, and brand identity cannot make film profitably...I mean really, come-on...
I see your point, but we should keep two things in mind.
First, their production lines are designed for huge volumes. They're so big, so expensive to run, so difficult and expensive to maintain, that they simply cannot be cost-efficient unless massive amounts of film are produced and sold. I'm sure the same films could be efficiently produced in small volumes if the production lines were designed for that to begin with.
Second, a small company's idea of profit is vastly different from that of a big dinosaur like Kodak, where hundreds of thousands of dollars get wasted every month just on private jets and huge salaries and bonuses for the upper management. What's lunch money for Kodak could be a pretty good profit for a small company.

[BrianShaw]

Second, Make no mistake, the vultures are already circling around the dieing Kodak. Real entrepreneurs with real money backing them will buy up what is needed to continue whatever film products they think can be produced at a profit.

... and the sharks are there too, just looking for the opportunity to make money -- one way or the other.

I'm not sure, though, that the notion of a specialty film producer is totally out of the question... if one has the right combination of engineering and financial skills to combine with keen approach to the marketing of specialty niche products. As one who has only none of those skills I can't see how it is possible, but I'd sure be supportive of someone who did and could!

[jb7]

Can we add minimal reciprocity effect to the wish list?

[Drew Wiley]

Vlad - it's the big manufacturers who can buy supplies in volume and who are necessary to keep the whole supply train alive. Small coaters are probably just buying
the leftovers of things like film base polyester or acetate, and would have to buy it
at much higher price otherwise, if they could keep it going at all. There are economies
of scale. You can't coat a quality emulsion onto just anything. Not all of us are interested in tintypes.

[BradS]

... and the sharks are there too, just looking for the opportunity to make money -- one way or the other.

I'm not sure, though, that the notion of a specialty film producer is totally out of the question... if one has the right combination of engineering and financial skills to combine with keen approach to the marketing of specialty niche products. As one who has only none of those skills I can't see how it is possible, but I'd sure be supportive of someone who did and could!

Oh, I completely agreee. It is what I was trying to say in fact. I believe that some entity will continue to operate some portion of the kodak film business. What that entity looks like...I obviously do not know. I can only be certain it will include lots of money and people who know what the technical difficulties are in running a coater.

[BrianShaw]

So how does the folks who "re-invented" AZO do it? Isn't reviving a paper a good analogy for reviving a film?

[Jason_1622]

I would defiantly start with black & white, but the difficultly is not a concern at the moment. I am more concerned about marketability

What is defiant about starting with b&w film? That's where most film companies started.

and FYI: the only way to make this thing marketable is to:

a - make it the best film ever.
b - make it the cheapest film ever.
c - both a & b together.

[Drew Wiley]

M. Smith offers a silver chloride substitute to Azo because he badly wanted it for his
own use, was willing to goes thru lots of of greuling prototyping and testing, was willing to risk serious amounts of money for little or no net profit, and ultimately has the product coated by someone else with facilities already. You can go to his site and probably read about the whole history of this product. As far as relative risk in concerned, this is a niche products with virtually no real competition at the moment.
Once one gets into basic black-and-white film, there are all kinds of options already
on the market which are well distributed. A whole different game.

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for refreshing my memory... I couldn't remember his name. Who's money is he using? I doubt the pre-orders was/is enough.

[Drew Wiley]

The pre-order phase comes in only once you've got a viable prototype run, but have
managed enough folks to make the relatively small risk of pre-purchase and wait. In
terms of actually lauching a product, it first involves re-mortaging your house and
selling a quart of your own blood once a day for the next ten years. If you're independently wealthy that's a different story. But for most of us it would represent
serious risk. Not for the faint-hearted.

[Vlad Soare]

You can't coat a quality emulsion onto just anything. Not all of us are interested in tintypes.
Indeed, but there would be no need to coat it onto just anything. Good acetate and polyester bases can still be found, and if I had to choose between having TMY on the same base as, say, Foma, and not having TMY at all, guess what I'd choose? :)
I doubt there's something magic about the base of Kodak films. What makes them so special is the emulsion. I'm sure Kodak's emulsions coated on a regular (whatever that means) acetate or polyester base would make the same extraordinary films. TXP would be an exception, its retouching base being probably the last of its kind still in existence. However, considering that most people who use TXP seem to love it for its characteristic curve, and not necessarily for its retouching properties, I'd venture to say that it would probably sell as well even if it were coated on a normal base.

[Ivan J. Eberle]

Self-scanning, and reuseable. That'd be cool for a film that's also optically printable.

[Ben Syverson]

You can't worry yet about making the product "good" if you're going to set up your own production line. First you need to focus on making something that works, period. Getting gelatin laid down on plastic and dried, in a predictable way. After that you have the luxury of messing around with the emulsion.

All of these feature requests (straight response curve, high silver content, etc) absolutely can not happen until the production line has already been ironed out.

As for commissioning a custom emulsion from an existing producer, all I can say is "good luck."

[Drew Wiley]

Vlad - choice of support base is very critical, and special hi-tech forms of base prep
are often necessary. Modern films are industrially complex items dependent on quite
an infrastructure and a very specialized materials. One of the weakest links at the moment is the continuing supply of certain bases. These kinds of things have to be
made in signficant volume. All the hobby and alternative coating combined relies on remnants of film base left over from true industrial scale operations. Otherwise, you're looking at some hand-coated process like carbon or gum printing or whatever. No small scale operation is going to be able to compete with someone like DuPont in supplying specific polyester stock. If I recall correctly, TechPan died not because of the emulsion, but because a specific base stock was no longer available. The whole business is a complex blend of tech /trade secret/and learned craft. Not simple at
all. You might want to join the group of those learning to make their own emulsions
for fun or whatever; but making a buck at it is a completely different ball game.

[Pawlowski6132]

I can only assume this is a joke?

[Drew Wiley]

Which is a joke? My statement certainly wasn't one. If anything it was an understatement. I'm not involved with the film industry except as a consumer, but I
am very involved with certain fields of manufacturing and have a pretty good idea of
the degree to which people underestimate the technical hurdles and expense of most
problems. Try buying an industrial roll of polyester film base and just see how far you
go into debt, if you can even find any for sale! It's not like buying a sheet of tracing
vellum at the art store.

[BradS]

Drew, I'm pretty sure Pawlowski6132 is referrring to the OP.

[Pawlowski6132]

Drew, I'm pretty sure Pawlowski6132 is referrring to the OP.

Absolutely.

[Pawlowski6132]

So how does the folks who "re-invented" AZO do it? Isn't reviving a paper a good analogy for reviving a film?

They outsourced it.

[Jeff Dexheimer]

Absolutely.

Really, so its not possible what I am proposing? Start experimenting with my own film emulsions for my own recreation and if all goes well casually develop into something more?

Yeah, I don't think its a stretch by any means. In fact many have already done so. Maybe if you think I am trying to take on Kodak, Ilford or Fuji, then yes, but if you read you'll find that what I mention doing is not a big undertaking.

Of course it is all relative. Maybe to you experimenting with film emulsions would be too intimidating.

[Dan Fromm]

Jeff, experimentation is one thing. Scaling up from proof-of-concept to pilot plant to consistent profitable volume production is another.

[Jay DeFehr]

Doesn't it make more sense to adapt/ develop an emerging technology than to try to emulate a mature one on a shoestring?

[Ben Syverson]

Whatever it is you want to do, there's someone on the internet who will declare it impossible and then list five reasons why you're an idiot for even thinking about it.

The few things I've achieved in my life are the result of severe overestimation of my own ability, and severe underestimation of the size of the task, followed by tons of work. It can bite you in the ass, of course.

I say watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oAB83Z1ydE) followed by this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz_-VaTHpc8) Haha

[MDR]

If you really wanna try this I wish you the best of luck.The only emulsion type that seems to missing today are old style thick emulsion Films (Kodak Super Sensitive Panachromatic, Verichrome, etc... love drool) Id love to have one of those and they seem to be easier to make than newer emulsion types they are grainier though.

Dominik

[Jeff Dexheimer]

At the risk of beating a dead horse I am going to make one last response to this thread regarding the last At the risk of beating a dead horse I am going to make one last response to this thread regarding the last three.

Dan, Experimentation is the starting point. Whether it goes beyond that is dependent on how well the experimentation goes. I do understand how to run a successful business as well. I have started several successful companies already and all goes well I have investors ready to fund it. The secret is, I have their trust that if they give me money I will make them a nice profit. I don't want to ever lose that trust, so unless I am 100% certain I will profit I will not take their money. To that point, this is why it will start as recreation, then if feasible move into more and also the reason I asked the question.

Jay, firstly because I don't believe film is dead. Secondly, film has the potential to do far more technologically than we have ever dreamed of. I don't want to let anything out, but we haven't even come close to maxing out the technical possibilities of film.

Lastly, Ben, thank you!

I want to thank all of you for your responses my questions, even the nay-sayers. Every comment is important information. In that spirit, add more if you would like. It will only help.

[Drew Wiley]

Actually those old school emulsions were said to be as much art as science, and once the tricky details ceased to be carefully handed down from one generation to
another, it became almost impossible to replicate something like Super-XX. Even the
batching equipment had to be just exactly right. More like making a fine wine - you
need a lot more background than just a recipe or textbook. There are some circumstances when the elves and gnomes and sorcerers just have to be around!

[Roger Cole]

Verichrome was a great film. My first ever roll of film I developed, when I was about 10-11 years old, was Verichrome. I bought a roll of 127 for my mom's Brownie and developed it in the bathroom, using a darkroom kit I got, I think, from Edmund Scientific. It included a little fixed size plastic enlarger for making 4x5 or so prints and a pack of 4x5 single weight fiber paper. I printed some of the roll too. My parents had no clue about this stuff and just sort of scratched their head about their son, but were supportive. This would have been 1973-74 or so.

But Verichrome was a great, forgiving film.

[Pawlowski6132]

Bizarre.

[Drew Wiley]

Jeff - none of my personal comments are intended as discouragment. But at this point there already a number of people working on new emulsions and piles of patents in the background, with very few ever coming into actual mfg. You need to
find some much more specific goal than just some new taking film, and also need to
get an idea of what or what has not already transpired in that direction. Maybe think
outside the box entirely and look at the whole picture of sustainable analog printing
before choosing a target. And then get ahold of a few likeminded experimenters
with solid experience before they pass away. And the big boys do hold a lot of patents that have never come to the fore, so you could do some really bright thinking and inadvertently come to a complete dead end regarding marketing.

[Drew Wiley]

Before heading into the lab for a few odds n' ends tonite, I can give some analogous
history. I used to tangle with the coatings industry quite a bit (not photographic). I'd
get into the labs of say an acrylic chemist of even a mid-sized mfg, and they'd have
hundreds and hundreds of samples of different emulsions on hand. Maybe only 1%
of them would ever find a market application. But their job was to come up with more and more, just in case the right application came around. The R&D apparatus
of some big company like Kodak can really be astounding. But as a fun introduction
to this game, why not come over to the Dye Transfer forum, and if you can survive
a few of the contentious personalities, help with the commercial revival of matrice
film etc. Or if not, that would be a good place to review the practical complications
involved in any kind of "relatively" simple emulsion coating project.

[Jay DeFehr]

At the risk of beating a dead horse I am going to make one last response to this thread regarding the last At the risk of beating a dead horse I am going to make one last response to this thread regarding the last three.

Dan, Experimentation is the starting point. Whether it goes beyond that is dependent on how well the experimentation goes. I do understand how to run a successful business as well. I have started several successful companies already and all goes well I have investors ready to fund it. The secret is, I have their trust that if they give me money I will make them a nice profit. I don't want to ever lose that trust, so unless I am 100% certain I will profit I will not take their money. To that point, this is why it will start as recreation, then if feasible move into more and also the reason I asked the question.

Jay, firstly because I don't believe film is dead. Secondly, film has the potential to do far more technologically than we have ever dreamed of. I don't want to let anything out, but we haven't even come close to maxing out the technical possibilities of film.

Lastly, Ben, thank you!

I want to thank all of you for your responses my questions, even the nay-sayers. Every comment is important information. In that spirit, add more if you would like. It will only help.

Jeff,

I never said film is dead, I said it's a mature technology, ie, any improvements made are likely to be incremental, very expensive, and made by leading manufacturers rather than home experimenters. I think the chances that some startup could make a film anything like as good as TMY-2 are zero, never mind color films. If we're talking about the film market, if it's not dead, it's certainly dying.

On the other hand.... as a technology emerges, the field is wide open for innovators and experimenters, even those working in makeshift facilities on small budgets. That's the crucial distinction I was trying to make. Still, I always cheer for the underdog, and I wish you all success!

[Greg Blank]

Dying like sales of oil paints or the Amercan Steel making industry? Realistically there will always be companies wether USA based or not, that supply what people want. Nervous hand wringing aside, one can create ones own film plates rather simplistically in terms of chemical process and knowledge. With any media you have edge pusher folks that like to make thier own systems the Leonardo D's of the world, the painters per say that buy the materials and grind thier own pigment versus the out of box kits folks prefer less complex prefabed creativity that performs to fairly consistent specs.

Me: I like the edge, but consistent work too :)

[Jay DeFehr]

Dying like sales of oil paints or the Amercan Steel making industry?

No, definitely not dying like artist's oils, the demand for which has increased steadily since their introduction, though at modest sales levels, and definitely not dying like steel, the demand for which and volume of production of which is greater than ever, but dying as in demand declining precipitously toward zero as the result of competition with an alternative technology. That kind of dying.

[David Aimone]

Probably a strange request, but I recently could have used a black and white positive film...

[Greg Blank]

But there are not many US Steel makers-correct? & there most likely will always be some people making images using alt processes that do not require out of the box materials. So the people that do make the materials themselves, will be able to express themselves regardless of the culture and latest technology. If your talking raw commerce versus art undoubtably the lead technology will determine how the producer works, but not the artist that choses a less linear path to making art and can decide to use a new technology or a less new one. There are no dictates the way I see it, and there really never have been relative to existing or out of practice technologies.

[Greg Blank]

In what format? Its still made by EK.


Probably a strange request, but I recently could have used a black and white positive film...

[Jay DeFehr]

But there are not many US Steel makers-correct? & there most likely will always be some people making images using alt processes that do not require out of the box materials. So the people that do make the materials themselves, will be able to express themselves regardless of the culture and latest technology. If your talking raw commerce versus art undoubtably the lead technology will determine how the producer works, but not the artist that choses a less linear path to making art and can decide to use a new technology or a less new one. There are no dictates the way I see it, and there really never have been relative to existing or out of practice technologies.

I'm not sure how you think steel or oil paints are related to film, but yes, there are many US steel makers. U.S. is the third largest producer of steel in the world, after China, Japan, and the *European Union.

Yes, anyone can make marks any way they like, including in the dirt with a finger or a toe, but that has nothing to do with my point, which is that it's harder/more expensive to innovate in a mature technology than in an emerging one. My comment that the market for film (as opposed to the technology) is dying, stands.

[Greg Blank]

I really don't know where that stat comes from, top ten producers of steel 2010 all headquartered in China and Japan. Its connected to jobs, EK and wether a small start up company can find enough customers to remain in business or even make a profit.

[Jay DeFehr]

I really don't know where that stat comes from, top ten producers of steel 2010 all headquartered in China and Japan. Its connected to jobs, EK and wether a small start up company can find enough customers to remain in business or even make a profit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_steel_production

You say it's connected, but you don't say how. I've lost interest.

[Greg Blank]

Just because you can not draw a straight line does not mean they don't exist.

[Ben Syverson]

There's no denying that the market for photographic film continues its decline (after falling off the face of the cliff). The analogies to other industries just confuse the issue. Neither steel nor artist's oils have ever faced existential threats.

Jay is right that mature markets can be tough to break into, but there are countless success stories too. How about three Seattle examples: Mike's Hard Lemonade, Starbucks and Amazon all entered mature markets with an uphill battle.

Film is becoming a more and more specialized niche, but this actually opens up more possibilities. Smaller production runs mean more agility, and more specialty emulsions. As big companies jack up the price of film, it leaves a space for start ups to undercut them.

The market for film will never completely die, just as the market for gouache will never die.

[Jay DeFehr]

Ben,

I agree on most of your points, but none of your Seattle examples entered into mature technologies with demands in free-fall decline. I think that's significant.

[BradS]

Ben,

I agree on most of your points, but none of your Seattle examples entered into mature technologies with demands in free-fall decline. I think that's significant.

Not to mention that none of them are R&D intensive nor do require any specialized technical expertise (for R&D or for operations). Only Mike's Hard Lemnonade could be called a manufacturing company. Starbucks and Amazon are ostensibly retail concerns. Amazon did not manufacture anything until recently and that only after building a strong core business and amassing hugh cash reserves.

[Ben Syverson]

My only point about those three were that they entered stale, mature markets and made a giant impact. And if you think Starbucks and Amazon didn't do a huge amount of R&D, you're sorely mistaken.

[Brian C. Miller]

Ben, I must take issue with the notion of Starbucks R&D. If you want to taste the difference between Starbucks and my home-roasted coffee, PM me. I hope you have a coffee grinder at home! :)

[Jay DeFehr]

My only point about those three were that they entered stale, mature markets and made a giant impact. And if you think Starbucks and Amazon didn't do a huge amount of R&D, you're sorely mistaken.

I don't disagree about the R&D. My point is that the demand for their products was not falling through the floor when they entered the market.

[Ben Syverson]

I don't disagree about the R&D. My point is that the demand for their products was not falling through the floor when they entered the market.
Maybe not "falling through the floor," but in 1995-1999, the bookstore, coffee and wine spritzer markets were either flatlining or declining. They were dying markets. No one in their right mind would advise those companies to enter those markets. "Long shot" doesn't even cover it.

In any event, analogies can only take us so far. The fact remains that I will buy 8x10 film as long as it's offered. In 10 years, we may have MF digital systems that are as cheap as DSLRs today and offer resolution comparable to the best 8x10, but unless my unreasonable latitude demands are met, I will still shoot film. Jerks like me will pay a premium per shot, and someone out there will supply the film.

10 years ago, if I told you that people would pay $10 / pound for luxury fresh pasta, you'd laugh in my face. But at my corner grocery, that's what you'll pay. Sure, you can make pasta for about 25¢ / pound, but will you? Probably not. That's where manufacturers come in.

[Greg Blank]

Pediantic. Case study rested. ;)
As in several whores arguing on the corner about doing the local drunk better.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jerks like me will pay a premium per shot, and someone out there will supply the film.

How can you be so sure? How many photographic materials have to become extinct to dissuade you of that notion? How many materials are no longer available at any price? Everyone has a breaking point, regarding the premium they're willing/ able to pay, and when that doesn't provide a profit for the mfg, they stop making the product. It's not really about you, as I'm sure you're well aware, but the market you assume will remain viable-- that there will remain enough like you, willing and able to pay whatever it takes to keep at least one manufacturer afloat. My willingness to pay a premium wanes long before my ability. But maybe you're right-- it's certainly possible-- but far from a foregone conclusion, I think. And I've been wrong before. I never thought MAS could launch a new silver chloride paper, but he did. And even if it failed tomorrow, he would still have accomplished something meaningful, and my guess is, he'd have no regrets. Sometimes it's very nice to be wrong!

[Ben Syverson]

Just think of it this way... there are still shops out there producing brand new vacuum tubes. From an engineering standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to use them, and demand for new tubes roughly follows the catastrophic graph of film demand.

True, the catalog of available tubes in 1958 was probably as thick as a phonebook. You have less to choose from today. But a few useful sizes are still being produced, and people are still buying them.

[Greg Blank]

WTF-Oh my did you say that?! 2012,....Holy sh-t its true, & Publically yet!!! That was my point! Quite a few posts back. Someone somewhere makes the stuff or grinds it (Pigment), and Steel its made.

[QUOTE=Jay DeFehr;And I've been wrong before. I never thought MAS could launch a new silver chloride paper, but he did. And even if it failed tomorrow, he would still have accomplished something meaningful, and my guess is, he'd have no regrets. Sometimes it's very nice to be wrong![/QUOTE]

[Ben Syverson]

Somehow I think we've gotten slightly off-topic

[Jay DeFehr]

Just think of it this way... there are still shops out there producing brand new vacuum tubes. From an engineering standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to use them, and demand for new tubes roughly follows the catastrophic graph of film demand.

True, the catalog of available tubes in 1958 was probably as thick as a phonebook. You have less to choose from today. But a few useful sizes are still being produced, and people are still buying them.

That's a good point, Ben. Sometimes (usually) things unfold in completely unpredictable ways, and there's no harm in wishful thinking.

[Leigh]

... there are still shops out there producing brand new vacuum tubes. From an engineering standpoint, there is absolutely no reason to use them...
Absolutely untrue... There are many applications that can only be handled by tubes, not by semiconductors.

...and substantially off-topic.

- Leigh

[Ben Syverson]

Absolutely untrue... There are many applications that can only be handled by tubes, not by semiconductors.

...and substantially off-topic.

- Leigh

Why? There are plenty of applications that can only be handled by film, not by digital sensors.

[Leigh]

Ben,

I was responding to your statement that there was no engineering reason to use vacuum tubes.

Stop changing the subject, and admit that you were wrong.

- Leigh

[Brian C. Miller]

According to what I've been reading on APUG, what can realistically be produced without Kodak's or Fuji's level of R&D would be an old to recent style emulsion, i.e., 1920's to at best 1960's. We would not be seeing a truly modern formulation, like TMax or Delta, from this.

The main process barrier to a new company making an emulsion is the base material. Four rolls minimum, each over a mile long, and the equipment to coat and cut it. So, it makes far more sense to work out an emulsion, and then have it made by someone else. That someone could be in the US, like at one of the xray film companies, or it could be made in Eastern Europe. Isn't Efke making the new Lodima paper?

Anyways, a new film emulsion isn't impossible, especially when it's piggy-backed onto someone else's production line.

[Ben Syverson]

Ben,

I was responding to your statement that there was no engineering reason to use vacuum tubes.

Stop changing the subject, and admit that you were wrong.

- Leigh
Oh for Christ's sake. I was trying to be concise, but if we're being pedantic, then how about this:
"There is absolutely no reason to use them in modern applications unless you're engineering particle accelerators, nuke-proof radios or other household items."

[Jay DeFehr]

Brian,

I think you're assuming a lot. If Kodak suddenly stopped buying the mile + long rolls of base material, the mfg of the base material might suddenly become more flexible about its minimum order requirements. Once a mfg is making an emulsion, wherever it falls on the technological spectrum, it could evolve into something like a modern emulsion. In other words, I don't think the barrier is as much technological as it is economic. The price, availability and quality of product will be determined by the market, and not by any technological limitations. I think I'm echoing Ben and others who say, "If I'm willing to pay, someone will make it", which I interpret to mean, if there's a market, there will be a product. I think that's true, as far as it goes. At some point "the market" simply becomes too small to support a product, and at that point, the people who are still willing to pay a premium won't have the option. What we're all trying to predict is how far the demand for film will fall, and I don't think any of us can reliably make that prediction. Currently demand for film is in free fall towards zero, but that could change at any time for reasons none of us anticipate, or not. We just don't, and can't know. What we can be more sure of, is that if demand decreases sufficiently, mfg ceases. When a man jumps out of an airplane, the potential outcomes for the man fall within a fairly narrow range--- either his parachute will open (assuming he has one), or it won't. If the man has no parachute, or his doesn't open, his survival will depend on an infinite number of highly improbable interventions. Those can be fun to think about, but not much fun to rely on.

[Drew Wiley]

Emulsions aren't just formulas. There's an art to it as well, and getting it right per people is probably just as much a factor in startup expense as chemical ingredients.
I have some custom products from Efke, and while quite usable, certainly aren't dust
or blesmish free to the extent desirable. There are alternatives in Germany with better
quality control. Even making an old-school classic film like Super-XX involved a continuity of tradition - and one cannot simply hand somone a formula and get that
kind of thing. Ones all the little elves retire, their secrets often go with them.

[Drew Wiley]

Jay - per film base it's all about economies of scale and setup expense. True industrial
quantities are probably the only way these roll goods can be made in the fashion
modern films need. And the petrochemicals behind them also have to be very carefully
purchased in order to prevent wild price fluctuations. If part of this equation collapses,
we might be left with only those films and formats which can be successfully coated on the most common base stocks, or else with frustrating inferior products. But in another sense, this is just survival of the fittest, and if certain film options disappear,
then the surviving ones will enjoy greater sales.

[Leigh]

Oh for Christ's sake. I was trying to be concise, but if we're being pedantic, then how about this:
Ben,

Why don't you just drop this line since you obviously have no idea what you're talking about?

- Leigh

[Greg Blank]

Exactly, despite peoples perceptions of how great Forte was it was full of quirks, like when I tested Efke a few years ago I found it to be a further step down from Forte and a long long way from Ilford and Kodak products in terms of QC. Making emulsions is akin to making Cookies, its a batter of sorts and like any perishable chemical mixture subject to many day to day variances.


Emulsions aren't just formulas. There's an art to it as well, and getting it right per people is probably just as much a factor in startup expense as chemical ingredients.
I have some custom products from Efke, and while quite usable, certainly aren't dust
or blesmish free to the extent desirable. There are alternatives in Germany with better
quality control. Even making an old-school classic film like Super-XX involved a continuity of tradition - and one cannot simply hand somone a formula and get that
kind of thing. Ones all the little elves retire, their secrets often go with them.

[Ben Syverson]

By all means, enlighten us, Father. Obviously the details of when and why you would use a vacuum tube are a touchy subject for you.

[Greg Blank]

Can we keep in mind the thread is about film making and asking for insight related to that?

Thanks.

[BradS]

Emulsions aren't just formulas. There's an art to it as well, and getting it right per people is probably just as much a factor in startup expense as chemical ingredients.


This is exactly what I keep thinking about. Many years ago, I did some work for a very large manufacturer of industrial and consumer goods. I worked in one of the plants where data recording products (computer tape and data cartridges) were made. There were a few very key technical people involved in the day-to-day operations...when they retired...the plant floundered for few years and finally closed (well it was spun off in there too but that is irrelavant). Nobody really had that specialized skill and experience necessary to run the operation.

Anybody who thinks they're gonna produce a commercially viable product that is competetive with current offerings from Kodak or Ilford, or even Efke and Foma without massive investment in time, money and very specific people is a fool.

[rguinter]

A film that would behave similar to Kodak IR film. In 4x5 and 8x10.


I second that. I would buy an HIE equivalent in 4x5 and 120 roll film sizes.

Bob G.

[unixrevolution]

I, personally, am tired of 400ISO being the top rated speed in 4x5. Something in the 800/1600/3200 range would have real appeal.

[Brian C. Miller]

Emulsions aren't just formulas. There's an art to it as well, and getting it right per people is probably just as much a factor in startup expense as chemical ingredients.
...
Ones all the little elves retire, their secrets often go with them.

To a certain extent, absolutely true. The Autochrome lines haven't restarted, the former Soviet film lines haven't restarted despite still having all of their elves and the equipment was shut down clean, and there's a few more cases of lines being shut down and not being able to come up again. PE has said he has no idea how to finish a modern film, and PE's retired coworker who does know how to do it wants to concentrate on fixing his house, and not chemistry.

Now, take a look at the busy elves at The Light Farm (http://www.thelightfarm.com/), and tell me what you think about the image on the home page. Looks like they stirred the pots well! No, these emulsions aren't duplicates of Pansubatomic XXXX, but they do work. Are they the equal of Kodak or Ilford? No, but still, the emulsions work. And as long as there are emulsions, then there will be photochemical photography.

What will the OP be doing? I have no idea, and I wish him well in his endeavors.

[Ben Syverson]

I, personally, am tired of 400ISO being the top rated speed in 4x5. Something in the 800/1600/3200 range would have real appeal.
That would be fantastic. 4x5 and 8x10 have so much surface area that you could really get some high speed without dissolving into mush.

Just think of the shots you could do handheld with an Aero Ektar and ISO 3200 film...

[E. von Hoegh]

I, personally, am tired of 400ISO being the top rated speed in 4x5. Something in the 800/1600/3200 range would have real appeal.

Like T-Max P 3200. Or even the old Royal-XX at 1250. (IIRC) T-Max 400 pushes to 800 pretty well.

[Jay DeFehr]

Jay - per film base it's all about economies of scale and setup expense. True industrial
quantities are probably the only way these roll goods can be made in the fashion
modern films need. And the petrochemicals behind them also have to be very carefully
purchased in order to prevent wild price fluctuations. If part of this equation collapses,
we might be left with only those films and formats which can be successfully coated on the most common base stocks, or else with frustrating inferior products. But in another sense, this is just survival of the fittest, and if certain film options disappear,
then the surviving ones will enjoy greater sales.

Drew,

You may well be right about that, but that's another prediction subject to too many variables to be very reliable. I'm much more optimistic about overcoming any technological challenges than I am about predicting demand. Without sufficient demand, the technology is irrelevant.

[Jay DeFehr]

And as long as there are emulsions, then there will be photochemical photography.

Agreed, by definition. But will there be demand, or even interest beyond those actually stirring the pots? There exists, even to this day, a commercial lab in Seattle that is capable of producing color carbon prints as good as any ever made by anyone, anywhere. The supremacy of carbon as a medium for making color prints is hardly in dispute, and the premium is far from unreasonable, yet how many avail themselves of this option? Not many, and probably no one here. In the end, demand, or lack thereof, trumps technology, experience, artistry, and little elves.

[Corran]

Just think of the shots you could do handheld with an Aero Ektar and ISO 3200 film...

I'm already pushing Tri-X 320 to that speed with an Aero/Speed. But yes I would love a true high-speed emulsion.

[Drew Wiley]

Sufficient demand will probably be around for quite some time for at least black and
white sheet film. Color is a more complex issue obviously. Talked to a friend of mine
yesterday who just purchased a sixty grand back for his Sinar (studio work). He probably has at least two million dollars of digital gear stuffed downstairs which he now
considers obsolete. He is one of those pros who can afford to amortize those kind of equip expenses, but just how many can? And who would want to go on location with
something that expensive and fragile? There are only so many realistic options out there. And sheet film is generally made on different base material than small camera
film anyway, so only secondarily factors in the amateur move to digital. So I think
doom and gloom is a very premature prognosis. Specific items or sources will continue
to come and go, with interim inconvenience. But I'd sure rather gamble on a thousand
dollars of film stored in the freezer than thirty to forty thousand for something that will
probably become obsolete just as fast!

[Greg Blank]

& how are you helping them? It would be appreciated if you could either name the lab or provide a link. There maybe folks here willing to contact them with work. Thanks.



Agreed, by definition. But will there be demand, or even interest beyond those actually stirring the pots? There exists, even to this day, a commercial lab in Seattle that is capable of producing color carbon prints as good as any ever made by anyone, anywhere. The supremacy of carbon as a medium for making color prints is hardly in dispute, and the premium is far from unreasonable, yet how many avail themselves of this option? Not many, and probably no one here. In the end, demand, or lack thereof, trumps technology, experience, artistry, and little elves.

[Jay DeFehr]

& how are you helping them? It would be appreciated if you could either name the lab or provide a link. There maybe folks here willing to contact them with work. Thanks.

Moderators, I'm not sure what the rules are for linking businesses, so if this is out of line, please remove.

http://www.colorcarbonprint.com/

Greg,

I think most here are aware of Tod and his business, and I doubt this link will mean any new business for him, but maybe you'll pony up and get a print made.

I've directed several photographers whose work I think would be greatly enhanced by Tod's prints, to his website, but as far as I know, none have committed. I don't have any color images worth the investment, myself.

[Leigh]

Just think of the shots you could do handheld with an Aero Ektar and ISO 3200 film...
Wow, Ben,

Handheld 8x10. :eek:

You're really quite an innovator, obviously full of ... ?ideas? ... or something.

- Leigh

[Jay DeFehr]

Wow, Ben,

Handheld 8x10. :eek:

You're really quite an innovator, obviously full of ... ?ideas? ... or something.

- Leigh

I'm not sure there's an Aero Ektar for 8x10? Ben was probably talking about 4x5, and I agree, it would be pretty great.

[Ben Syverson]

Leigh, I'm not sure what your problem is with me, but you're well on your way to making my ignore list...

[Mike Anderson]

Being ignored by an idiot is a badge of honor.

- Leigh

Interesting. As The Large Format Photography Forum Turns.

[Greg Blank]

I think thats more helpful.
As far as a discussion I can not imagine the moderators having an issue.
I am sending you a PM though related to the link. Some of the imagery does strike the fancy, very nice color on my calibrated monitor.


Moderators, I'm not sure what the rules are for linking businesses, so if this is out of line, please remove.

http://www.colorcarbonprint.com/

Greg,

I think most here are aware of Tod and his business, and I doubt this link will mean any new business for him, but maybe you'll pony up and get a print made.

I've directed several photographers whose work I think would be greatly enhanced by Tod's prints, to his website, but as far as I know, none have committed. I don't have any color images worth the investment, myself.

[Greg Blank]

You guys that are sniping, it will be appreciated if you can remain inert or take it to the PM, lounge or wherever.

[BradS]

Wow...we've progressed from indulgence in fantasy through rational explanation of reality and now degenerated into petty bickering...all in the space of 160 some posts....remarkable.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Jeff, please keep us updated as to your progress.

[K. Praslowicz]

Remember me and all the free film I've given you when you reach the point where you are turning out 8x10 color. ;)

[unixrevolution]

With the recent news of Kodak's discontinuation of Ektachrome and Fuji's discontinuation of Astia, I would suggest that a dimensionally stable, polyester-base reversal film with natural color reproduction would be a brisk seller.

[Renato Tonelli]

With the recent news of Kodak's discontinuation of Ektachrome and Fuji's discontinuation of Astia, I would suggest that a dimensionally stable, polyester-base reversal film with natural color reproduction would be a brisk seller.

There you go!

[toyotadesigner]

I'll second that!

There is a lot of b&w film produced and on the market, so an investment into that road doesn't make sense.

What I (and many others) do miss is E6 or slide film. 100 ASA or 50 ASA, color rendition like the Provia or Ektachrome but without peppergrain.

I don't think I'll ever switch to negative film.

[Ben Syverson]

Anyone who thinks it's possible to produce a neutral color reversal film before attempting a B&W negative film is in for a rude surprise.

[alexn]

What do I want in a film...

A C-41 colour neg film with the brilliant colour of Velvia 50, the strong yet still reasonable contrast of Velvia 100F and the latitude of Ektar 100...

Please forward payment information as soon as said film is produced.

[unixrevolution]

Anyone who thinks it's possible to produce a neutral color reversal film before attempting a B&W negative film is in for a rude surprise.


Why?

[John NYC]

Why?

Read the book "Making Kodak Film" by Robert Shanebrook and you will understand why.

[Ben Syverson]

Why?
Because a B&W negative film can be one layer of a very simple silver halide emulsion.

Color reversal film requires at least five (but most likely many more) layers of precisely calibrated filters, dyes and silver halide.

A one layer curtain coater is a relatively simple device in principle. A 5+ layer curtain coater is not.

[Holdenrichards]

Go Jeff! I wish you success!

[jnl]

I would love something along the lines of Super xx and Type 55. However, I can't help but think of Bergger 200 and the New55 project. The Bergger 200 was a great old style thick emulsion film. Many here have commented on wanting that, yet the Bergger film did not last. The New 55 Project has proven they can make the film, yet it is not in production. I wonder what their stumbling blocks were. Perhaps it would be worth while to reach out to them.

I would also love a faster than 400 B&W sheet film for 4x5 & 8x10!

[toyotadesigner]

As far as I understand the making of film is a complicated process, which requires a lot of know how, experience, R&D and high precision machines. Obviously, there are only two large global players who do have all the variables and are in possession of many patents for this technology.

As far as I know there are many people who prefer film and still shoot film. And there are even more film based cameras in studios and private households than I can imagine. This means to me there is a market. As far as I remember Fujifilm makes around 80 million on film sales (don't nail me on this figure) and it is a very profitable division (though it is a lot smaller than years ago). Kodak's film division is the only profitable division.

What both of these companies have is a real treasure. I could imagine that both companies will keep a profitable division as long as they can, even if they will have to close one of the several production lines.

As soon as it wouldn't make too much sense for them they would close the complete line. However, they might sell the division to some investors, including the know how, patents, etc. The investors could downscale the production and turn the smaller operation into another profitable business for a niche.

For the E6 process I am aware that it requires more than just making the film - you need to have labs to develop the exposed film. This means that a film manufacturer will have to offer an excellent lab service for his products as well, supplying at least on facility on each continent. Mail-in isn't a problem these days. Everything could be streamlined to the max. One example is EuroColor Gera in Germany, which works closely together with Fuji.

What I mean is that there is a chance to run this business on a smaller scale than before and be still profitable. Technology aside, it requires more than just making the film. It has to be a complete process system from making to developing and finishing.

In Europe we do have Agfa. AFAIK they still produce film, but with a coating technology that is a bit outdated (coarse grain to name one feature). Obviously it isn't a simple task to develop new emulsions and the required machines for coating. So why start from zero? Wouldn't it make more sense to cooperate?

[toyotadesigner]

Sorry, I have to correct the figure for the film imaging division: in 2010 it was 450 Million Euro for film and photo paper sales.

[unixrevolution]

Read the book "Making Kodak Film" by Robert Shanebrook and you will understand why.

I fully intend to. I saw it reccomended earlier.


Because a B&W negative film can be one layer of a very simple silver halide emulsion.

Color reversal film requires at least five (but most likely many more) layers of precisely calibrated filters, dyes and silver halide.

A one layer curtain coater is a relatively simple device in principle. A 5+ layer curtain coater is not.

That makes it very plain to me. Thanks for the explanation!

Of course, to use a rather crude analogy...you don't need to start building engines with a lawnmower engine. It's perfectly reasonable for a careful first-time engine builder to build a V8 straight from the word go. Similarly, though I think making B&W film first would obviously give essential experience, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable that an educated person running a company with enough resources and expertise couldn't start with something more complicated, like color reversal film.

Still, that is assuming the person is confident and ambitious enough. I'm not saying it'd be easy, just possible.

All the same, whatever this new film company makes, I'll certainly buy some at least to try it, weither it's the polyester-base Ektachrome replacement I hope for, or a 100-speed B&W like Ilford, Kodak and Fuji make. The name of the game for me with film is Viva Variety.

[miss_emma_jade]

what about glass plates. something like 100 speed isopan f in 5x4 and 8x10.. that would be nice to use..

[Ben Syverson]

Of course, to use a rather crude analogy...you don't need to start building engines with a lawnmower engine. It's perfectly reasonable for a careful first-time engine builder to build a V8 straight from the word go.
I'm sorry, but this analogy has several problems. Making color film from scratch is not the same as assembling a few car parts based on a diagram. Would you think it a good idea for someone with no experience in mechanical engineering—or background in engine design, or plans for a similar engine—to sit down and start machining a V8 from solid steel?

As toddlers, we all had to learn how to stand on our own, long before we learned to ride a bike. You're suggesting putting a newborn on a road bike.

[unixrevolution]

I'm sorry, but this analogy has several problems. Making color film from scratch is not the same as assembling a few car parts based on a diagram. Would you think it a good idea for someone with no experience in mechanical engineering—or background in engine design, or plans for a similar engine—to sit down and start machining a V8 from solid steel?

As toddlers, we all had to learn how to stand on our own, long before we learned to ride a bike. You're suggesting putting a newborn on a road bike.

So there is nothing to be gleaned from technical documents and other documentation of film manufacturing or film making equipment? It's necessary to engineer the whole process from nothing all over again? Give a reasonably bright person enough time, research materials and money, he could machine his own V8 from steel billets and do quite a good job at it.

Perhaps our entrepreneur hasn't got the resources to make a stab at slide film at the first go...in that case, building up business selling BW while you research your slide film from the profits of the Black and White sales is more than reasonable. But if he decided to just go for it, and begin developing a new Polyester-based color slide right away, and he has time, resources and literature to help him do it, who's to say it's impossible?

I would quite understand if the technology to make slide film were completely proprietary and all documentation on its manufacture, and on making the machines used to churn it out, were locked away, then it would stand to reason you start with B&W and go up from there. But I have a hard time believing slide film is that proprietary.

Impossible didn't start out with 35mm film and work their way up to Instant...they started on the idea of making new instant film from the get go. It's not perfect, even now, but it's being made.

I am quite happy to read "Making Kodak Film" once I get a copy in my hands, and admit I'm not fully equipped to understand the challenges involved until I have, and maybe not even after I have... but every engineering challenge doesn't go all the way back to the stone age and reinvent everything in between the first wooden club and the radial aircraft engine. We have the shoulders of some considerable giants to stand on. I don't have to reinvent the zone system when I shoot 4x5, Ansel Adams invented it. I just have to read, practice, and perfect my own skill at using it.

[Brian C. Miller]

So there is nothing to be gleaned from technical documents and other documentation of film manufacturing or film making equipment? It's necessary to engineer the whole process from nothing all over again?

Take a look at The Light Farm (http://www.thelightfarm.com), and look at their current efforts. Denise and the rest have been home coating for some time. While their efforts are quite good, it's not going to be the next TMax or Acros or Delta or TechPan. The ADOX rep on APUG said that it's easy to make a 100 speed film. It's a bit harder to make a 400 speed film. The real sweat comes when the films are at the extreme ends, like Delta or TMax 3200, or Techpan and Acros.

While a couple of the guys who invented Kodachrome were musicians, they were also very highly trained chemical engineers, and were backed by a lot of industry and money.

Some of the dye chemicals are, in fact, proprietary and are trade secrets. These would have to be reinvented in the process of creating the film. For an experienced manufacturer like ADOX, it takes a couple of years to get a known emulsion up and running. And they already have the equipment, formulas, and engineers!

[dwross]

I would quite understand if the technology to make slide film were completely proprietary and all documentation on its manufacture, and on making the machines used to churn it out, were locked away, then it would stand to reason you start with B&W and go up from there. But I have a hard time believing slide film is that proprietary.




Unfortunately, much-to-almost all the technology is locked away, either in patent vaults or the grave (and it pains me more than most to say that.) Not least of all is the proprietary chemistry. I think a determined entrepreneur could absolutely, eventually, develop and bring to market excellent materials, but they would almost certainly be different from the old, discontinued brands. Of course, I'm not saying for a second that would be a bad thing. It just is what it is.

If anyone is giving this serious thought, I think it might have real legs, but starting from the ground floor is the way to go. In response to "miss emma jade"'s comment: If the questions and requests that cross my desk every week are any indication, there is a real and potentially very lucrative market for glass dry plates, and new and restored plate holders, especially the oddball sizes and book form. This would be completely do'able for the determined creator of a new "Plate Company" cottage industry.

d

[jnantz]

if you could recreate autochrome film,
that would be what i would buy ...

[unixrevolution]

Take a look at The Light Farm (http://www.thelightfarm.com), and look at their current efforts. Denise and the rest have been home coating for some time. While their efforts are quite good, it's not going to be the next TMax or Acros or Delta or TechPan. The ADOX rep on APUG said that it's easy to make a 100 speed film. It's a bit harder to make a 400 speed film. The real sweat comes when the films are at the extreme ends, like Delta or TMax 3200, or Techpan and Acros.

While a couple of the guys who invented Kodachrome were musicians, they were also very highly trained chemical engineers, and were backed by a lot of industry and money.

Some of the dye chemicals are, in fact, proprietary and are trade secrets. These would have to be reinvented in the process of creating the film. For an experienced manufacturer like ADOX, it takes a couple of years to get a known emulsion up and running. And they already have the equipment, formulas, and engineers!

I figured that, but I thought there had to be at least a couple well-known slide-film recipies floating around out in the public domain by now. I'm a little suprised there aren't.


Unfortunately, much-to-almost all the technology is locked away, either in patent vaults or the grave (and it pains me more than most to say that.) Not least of all is the proprietary chemistry. I think a determined entrepreneur could absolutely, eventually, develop and bring to market excellent materials, but they would almost certainly be different from the old, discontinued brands. Of course, I'm not saying for a second that would be a bad thing. It just is what it is.

If anyone is giving this serious thought, I think it might have real legs, but starting from the ground floor is the way to go. In response to "miss emma jade"'s comment: If the questions and requests that cross my desk every week are any indication, there is a real and potentially very lucrative market for glass dry plates, and new and restored plate holders, especially the oddball sizes and book form. This would be completely do'able for the determined creator of a new "Plate Company" cottage industry.

d

Thanks for the elucidation. I really was totally unaware all of it was so completely locked up, but now having heard it explained, I believe it. I still believe you could do it yourself with enough time, money and research, but the research is almost all locked away, making the time and money requirements hard to meet, I'm sure.

In any case, I do hope this takes off, and the former big industry of film-making becomes a cottage industry ruled by the creative people, not marketers ;) Thanks all for helping me satisfy my curiosity.

[dwross]

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the plug. I didn't see your post until after I'd sent mine. Spot on with everything you said. I'll add a couple of points: ASA/ISO 100 is a realistic top speed. I'm getting that mid-day at high elevations, but the number drops like a rock at sea level. Of course, I'm not saying it can't get better, but 100 is a good target number. And, you can do a lot with a 100 emulsion.

Ortho is here and I'm setting up to work on pan -- again "slow" emulsions by modern standards. But (and I think this is the point that makes the argument) a realistic cottage industry is going to be catering to a niche itch that isn't being scratched by the Big Guys. Go for glass plates and plate support, and colorblind and ortho emulsions with some serious halation. Again, this is all my opinion of course, but it's a reasonably informed opinion. Think Small to Think Big.

d

[Ben Syverson]

(snip) But I have a hard time believing slide film is that proprietary.
Are you kidding? Kodak was like Apple when it comes to secrecy. The veil of secrecy was nicknamed "The Silver Curtain." Instead of patenting innovations, they locked them up as trade secrets. Fujifilm did the same. Why patent something, when you only get a few years of exclusivity in exchange for giving away a valuable competitive advantage?

Writes Shanebrook: "No single document includes all the necessary information to make a film. Materials are identified in code that would not be understood by outside experts or even by former employees... The units of measure may be very unconventional... The same material at different dilutions may have totally different codes."

So yes, you would be starting from scratch.


Impossible didn't start out with 35mm film and work their way up to Instant...they started on the idea of making new instant film from the get go. It's not perfect, even now, but it's being made.
Impossible started with B&W and worked their way up to color, just as I'm suggesting.

[unixrevolution]

Are you kidding? Kodak was like Apple when it comes to secrecy. The veil of secrecy was nicknamed "The Silver Curtain." Instead of patenting innovations, they locked them up as trade secrets. Fujifilm did the same. Why patent something, when you only get a few years of exclusivity in exchange for giving away a valuable competitive advantage?

No, I am NOT kidding. Pardon me for not knowing everything already and being curious. I'm not trolling, just genuinely wanting to know more. Others in this thread have happily explained to me why I was wrong, and make no mistake, I was wrong because I lacked some of the information for a full understanding of why it's difficult to engineer slide film from scratch. But don't address me as though I should already know all this stuff because we covered it in class last week.


Writes Shanebrook: "No single document includes all the necessary information to make a film. Materials are identified in code that would not be understood by outside experts or even by former employees... The units of measure may be very unconventional... The same material at different dilutions may have totally different codes."

So yes, you would be starting from scratch.


Impossible started with B&W and worked their way up to color, just as I'm suggesting.

See, now I understand why it would be so difficult, and just to what degree...(an incredible degree, at least to me), this stuff was obfuscated at just about every level. Pretty unreal. I underestimated the ability of an industry to keep its secrets truly secret.

[dwross]

if you could recreate autochrome film,
that would be what i would buy ...

John,
Isn't there someone in France working on this? I've haven't heard recently how it's all going and not even the Google machine has much info. Talk about your basic Holy Grail, though. Just about as nifty a process as ever there was.

d

[unixrevolution]

John,
Isn't there someone in France working on this? I've haven't heard recently how it's all going and not even the Google machine has much info. Talk about your basic Holy Grail, though. Just about as nifty a process as ever there was.

d

I love the idea of shooting autochromes. Very cool stuff.

[Ben Syverson]

No hard feelings Erik—I think I misinterpreted your tone. In any event, now hopefully you see some of the challenges this project faces. I have every expectation that a niche film producer could spring up in the next few years. If they're successful, I can even imagine them working their way up to an "artistic" color film.

Even Tri-X (an old fashioned, non-tabular grain film) has three distinct layers: Overcoat, Fast Agx, Slow Agx. Combining two emulsion speeds in one film improves granularity and increases exposure latitude.

[E. von Hoegh]

I've been fascinated by Autochrome images as long as I've known what they are.

You know, a dedicated hobbyist can do amazing things, such as the fellow in Great Britain who designed and built every piece of an amateur radio transmitter, including the vacuum tubes.

[Ben Syverson]

I don't think an Autochrome would be at all hard to make.

The problem is that they're very grainy, even in LF.

[unixrevolution]

No hard feelings Erik—I think I misinterpreted your tone. In any event, now hopefully you see some of the challenges this project faces. I have every expectation that a niche film producer could spring up in the next few years. If they're successful, I can even imagine them working their way up to an "artistic" color film.

Even Tri-X (an old fashioned, non-tabular grain film) has three distinct layers: Overcoat, Fast Agx, Slow Agx. Combining two emulsion speeds in one film improves granularity and increases exposure latitude.

None taken! I hope you understand I really am genuinely curious. Hell, here I am shooting large format, and I didn't know an f/stop from a bus stop four years ago. I do indeed see the challenges a project like making a new slide film faces, but I think if the right product comes out in the end, it will be worth it!

[Michael Kadillak]

A few years back I was similarly investigating a LF/ULF lens project to fill in the gaps in the offerings both in existing focal lengths and in price points. I am going to save you some time and resources.

You cannot fathom the time and financial resources necessary to effectively enter this domain. If you are a trust fund beneficiary I can put you in touch with those that can make this a reality. I even have a company that has an emulsion coating operation that you can contract with. If, however, you are like the rest of us working for a living then leave this for those that are already in the game. The ability to have a peaceful nights sleep on a regular basis is a wonderful thing.

[Bob Salomon]

You might want to read the latest PMA report on trends in the photo industry for 2011 before you start.

[Michael Batchelor]

Why?

It is probably possible. But I think a reasonable analogy would be that it's like expecting to qualify for a NASCAR race without ever learning to drive on city streets.

[Michael Batchelor]

I don't think an Autochrome would be at all hard to make.

The problem is that they're very grainy, even in LF.

I think Chris's experiments with the computer monitor masks were a good start toward autochromes.

[jnantz]

John,
Isn't there someone in France working on this? I've haven't heard recently how it's all going and not even the Google machine has much info. Talk about your basic Holy Grail, though. Just about as nifty a process as ever there was.

d

hi denise

i have also heard of this person .... if it is the same person i
am thinking of, there was a french website i found last year? the year before ?
that had some results, but they were quite primitive at best.
it probably all has to do with good hearty french potatoes !
all grown to the east and north of dijon, and south of the jura ... ;)


I don't think an Autochrome would be at all hard to make.

The problem is that they're very grainy, even in LF.

hi ben

i have heard of people who have been trying to make a modern autochromes for over a decade
and come up ... empty.

i could easily live with the grain ...

maybe we can find a medium, and channel in Auguste and Louis ...

john

[Ben Syverson]

As far as autochrome goes... There are two main challenges: 1) finding or developing a panchromatic B&W reversal process, and 2) making the colored particles.

If you're willing to make a negative autochrome, then you can get rid of challenge #1. Scan it or print it to invert the image.

Challenge #2 is far easier in 2012 than 1903, because we have plastic. Just find red, green, blue (and add in CMY while you're at it) tinted plastic, grind it up, then filter it through a few metal strainers until the grains are a uniform size. Or don't filter them—maybe you want different sizes.

Flip a sheet of 400 speed B&W film over, and spray or paint the back (base) with a water resistant adhesive. Dust the grains generously over the adhesive and allow them to set and cure. Maybe do another layer of adhesive to seal them in. Shoot the film backward (emulsion side becomes the back), so you're shooting through the grains, through the base, down to the emulsion. Develop the film carefully so you don't disturb the grains too much. At the end, you should have a color negative autochrome.

Do you think that might work? I may be overlooking something. You can also do the traditional glass plates, if you can find or make them.

[jnl]

Maybe this is the site people are referring to: http://www.autochromes.fr/english/last.html
Autochromes shot as recently as 2009.

[Michael Kadillak]

Best thing we can do is to purchase existing film from the remaining manufacturers. Everyone talks about being "supportive" of these ventures and encouraging the process and then several things happen. The promoter realizes that the business model has rather lofty requirements for capital, ancillary functions not envisioned apart from the one dimensional film objective and being able to get those individuals that have been talking a big game about financially supporting the venue have been talking dimes of support when C notes at regular intervals are necessary from 1,000 times as many people that have spawned these activities.

Specifically when it cane to my lens project I needed to produce over 2,000 lenses of each focal length to get the necessary manufacturing costs down to acceptable levels and I honestly felt I could sell at best 15-20 a year if the stars all lined up correctly. Then I had to accommodate the fact that something may have gone wrong somewhere along the process that rendered them unacceptable to the buyers. Then what do you do? Capitalism is not a one dimensional equation.

[dwross]

Michael,

I agree with you completely for a "Big Biz" business model and a product like lenses (and of course, my agreement does not mean that we are necessarily correct.) But for a low tech, low capital start-up, such as a dry plate company could be -- success, if measured in modest initial terms, is very feasible. Again, my opinion.

Regarding supporting remaining manufacturers: I doubt there would be enough dry plates sold to impact their bottom lines. What I do believe is that the very knowledge that traditional materials aren't going to inevitably, irrevocably disappear lends confidence to photographers to keep (or build) darkrooms and not give up on mastering their analog skills. Much of the downward spiral of Kodak, et al, has been the echo chamber that film is dead and once gone...well, we're screwed. Might as well quit now. And around and down it just keeps spiraling. If I were in charge at Ilford, I'd establish a program to encourage cottage industry dry plates. It would do nothing but good for the longterm health of the industry.

As for Dream Big optimism, look no further than Bostick and Sullivan 30 years ago. Who would have thunk?

d

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael,

I agree with you completely for a "Big Biz" business model and a product like lenses (and of course, my agreement does not mean that we are necessarily correct.) But for a low tech, low capital start-up, such as a dry plate company could be -- success, if measured in modest initial terms, is very feasible. Again, my opinion.

Regarding supporting remaining manufacturers: I doubt there would be enough dry plates sold to impact their bottom lines. What I do believe is that the very knowledge that traditional materials aren't going to inevitably, irrevocably disappear lends confidence to photographers to keep (or build) darkrooms and not give up on mastering their analog skills. Much of the downward spiral of Kodak, et al, has been the echo chamber that film is dead and once gone...well, we're screwed. Might as well quit now. And around and down it just keeps spiraling. If I were in charge at Ilford, I'd establish a program to encourage cottage industry dry plates. It would do nothing but good for the longterm health of the industry.

As for Dream Big optimism, look no further than Bostick and Sullivan 30 years ago. Who would have thunk?

d

I am going to respectfully disagree with your assertion above. Bostick and Sullivan is in business as a "niche" aggregator. They do the leg work to make it easier for one stop shopping for alternative photographers. It is my understanding that they do not produce as highly complex a product as film and I will tell you straight up that film IS a highly complex product to produce. If you disagree with this fundamental premise, then please talk to some with direct professional experience in this regard.

Producing and selling a film product is identical to my lens business model. It takes technical skills and an investment of more size than you either anticipate or want to cough up to produce an acceptably performing prototype product. Balancing the enormous variables necessary to meet your (and the customers) expectations sounds simplistic enough but is always multiples more than you want or expect to expend. Unless you are planning to do all of the R&D, chemical engineering, emulsion testing, coating, packaging, packaging testing, emulsion degradation testing, manufacturing, marketing and customer service yourself in your home office and or darkroom, you are in for a wake up call. If one is planning to complete these operations solo, then you better set aside some significant blocks of time for these tasks because you are going to get an introduction to the real world. The fact of the matter is that one's expectations that your time is worth even $1/hr is a stretch. At the end of the day you are faced with the reality that making any return on the investment of your modest expectations of what limited capital or time you expect it would take you to make this "work" is in fundamental error. But sometimes people need to go down this road to figure this out for themselves.

My experience is that being young, bright eyed and eternally optimistic are intrinsically marvelous characteristics. But God gave us brain to allow us to differentiate the challenging business world from the rest of the world. If I could get $20 for every time I saw first hand someone confuse optimism with legitimate business savvy and unnecessarily expend time and resources to get this experience, I would have a great second income.

[Ben Syverson]

If I could get $20 for every time I saw first hand someone confuse optimism with legitimate business savvy and unnecessarily expend time and resources to get this experience, I would have a great second income.
That's true, but there's a flip side to that. If every entrepreneur knew exactly how much work, time and expense their project would take, most of them would stay at their desk jobs. I would have decided not to do iPhone apps, and I certainly wouldn't have involved myself in a camera business.

When it comes to business, ignorance is underrated. Making a product is like having a baby—if you wait until you're 100% prepared and 100% financially stable, it'll never happen.

[dwross]

Michael,

I certainly understand your point of view. I will maintain, though, that everything in your second paragraph is the kind of commitment the "young, bright eyed and eternally optimistic" have always had to make. It is what has brought us nearly every invention and innovation. Failure is an option, yes, but it is only old folks and the unfortunate young they convince who think that big bucks right out of the chute should be a guarantee in any venture. Second jobs, second mortgages, beans for supper -- it's all a realistic part of any start-up. It's only recently that venture capital money has come to be seen as an income in-and-of itself.

re B&S: Dick, Dana, and crew are much more than aggregators. Originally, Dick had to basically invent the business of selling Pt/Pd. Now, we take it for granted as a photographic medium. Currently, they manufacture their own high-quality carbon tissue. That takes as much, or more, skill than making glass dry plates.

2 cents (maybe less)
d

[jnantz]

Maybe this is the site people are referring to: http://www.autochromes.fr/english/last.html
Autochromes shot as recently as 2009.


nope, this is another one, and they look beautiful !
they must have found the right potatoes :)

thanks for the link jnl!
john

[Michael Kadillak]

Michael,

I certainly understand your point of view. I will maintain, though, that everything in your second paragraph is the kind of commitment the "young, bright eyed and eternally optimistic" have always had to make. It is what has brought us nearly every invention and innovation. Failure is an option, yes, but it is only old folks and the unfortunate young they convince who think that big bucks right out of the chute should be a guarantee in any venture. Second jobs, second mortgages, beans for supper -- it's all a realistic part of any start-up. It's only recently that venture capital money has come to be seen as an income in-and-of itself.

re B&S: Dick, Dana, and crew are much more than aggregators. Originally, Dick had to basically invent the business of selling Pt/Pd. Now, we take it for granted as a photographic medium. Currently, they manufacture their own high-quality carbon tissue. That takes as much, or more, skill than making glass dry plates.

2 cents (maybe less)
d

Let's visit this subject after you bring your product to market.

[dwross]

Let's visit this subject after you bring your product to market.

Not this product. I'll leave that to someone younger -- as I was 25 years ago when I started and successfully ran a tech product-based niche company with very similar challenges. Today, I research the history of silver gelatin emulsions. I make the stuff for myself, but based on way too much life's experience (euphemism for I'm getting old) I'm quite sure it could be a business with even-to-better odds of success. But, I take your point. Enough cheerleading someone else's risk.

d

[SpeedGraphicMan]

I will agree that some 800 speed b&w film would be nice in Large Format.

If you could make 100/200/400/800 color negative material and sell it at a "competitive" price. I would be super happy!

And don't forget us archival folks!!!
Some better choices in the 70mm long roll (for making color separation masters) would be much appreciated!

[C.T. Greene]

By my very nature I am an entrupanurer. I am always dreaming up business ideas and products. I also have a degree in chemistry and have plenty of engineering connections. After starting LF I realize there is still plenty of need for quality film products, especially in the LF and MF arenas.

In the intrest of feeling out the market before I invest a substantial of time, money and energy, how open would you be to a new brand of film?

Assume the film is competativly priced and available in a few different flavors. ie color neg, and different iso's.

Also, if I were to start something of this nature, what would you like to see in a film and film company? That is, what characteristics are important to you?

YA got my vote, I would love to have some of the old kodak 'PPC' film line in sheets . . ah an eight by ten sheet film, pushable with 1600 speed & 400 grain . . . ah what a dream!

[Leigh]

Best thing we can do is to purchase existing film from the remaining manufacturers.
Absolutely correct.

Fragmenting an already minimal and specialized market just puts everybody out of business.

Then where do we get film? From this new guy?
Nope... He closed up shop and started a fried chicken franchise. That's the problem with 'entrepreneurs'.

- Leigh

[Two23]

Why?

Genuinely curious. If you really need film that slow you could get Adox or Efke 25 and use a two stop ND filter. That would give you EI 6, assuming the original rating of 25 is accurate.

That's seriously slow. Motion studies with long shutter speeds in bright sun maybe?


Some of us like to shoot f3.5 Petzvals in bright sunlight. I use Efke 25 and would buy something like ISO 6 or slower if it were available. Nowfor another thought. How about an ortho film (blue sensitive only) with no anti-halo coating? Could give images a very old & historic look. Another thought might be some gelatin plates, either 4x5 or half plate. It's a niche and I think it might sell. It would be something you could do in smaller batches too. I really don't have a lot of interest in the more "standard" films such as ISO 100-400 as I still have plenty of choice there. Now 4x5 dry plates, that might be something!



Kent in SD

[Drew Bedo]

Figure out a cheap adaptation for a fast capture single pass color scanner. Something I can strap to the back of my 2-D, and manage with my smart phone or tablet . . .maybe with blue-tooth so no cables.

[Brian C. Miller]

PDN: The Future of Film (http://www.pdnonline.com/features/The-Future-of-Film-5631.shtml)

DiSabato notes, “Someone who decided to get into film and can make it as well as Kodak would be growing and would be able to justify all sorts of investment.”

There you go, dexmeister! The market is wide open!

[Ed Bray]

I like large format because I want great quality, for me speed is not an essential element or I would be using a D3s at 10fps at ISO1600 or even 3200.

For me, an ISO25-50 smooth toned, extremely fine grained Panatomic X, APX25 or Pan F in 4x5 sheet film.

[buggz]

I forget if I've posted here, or not.
"Bring back ASA25!"
I'd love to see a slow speed color film in both 4x5 and 8x10.
I only have a 4x5 system right now, but...

[Roger Cole]

I like large format because I want great quality, for me speed is not an essential element or I would be using a D3s at 10fps at ISO1600 or even 3200.

For me, an ISO25-50 smooth toned, extremely fine grained Panatomic X, APX25 or Pan F in 4x5 sheet film.

You know I thought that way about large format, before I actually started shooting with large format. Now - I'd rather have Delta 3200 than another slow speed film, and here's a few reasons why. Of course this is entirely in reference to my tastes and so forth and certainly YMMV:

1. Existing 100 speed films are more than good enough. TMX or Acros or Delta 100 will provide finer grain than I will ever see in the prints I make, even cropped (maximum size I can print is currently 16x20) and more sharpness than I can begin to use given my LF lenses (granted, mine are older ones but I might get better in future) and the film flatness challenges of film holders.

2. Yes, I'm always (so far, I'll get to that) shooting off a tripod but even so, lenses are slow and are further slowed by the fact that I'm almost always shooting at f/16-f/22, occasionally f/11 but rarely faster than that and occasionally even f/32 (which adds diffraction to the sharpness limits in item 1 as well.) Add to that I almost always use a filter with LF black and white - even a #8 has a filter factor of 2.5 or 1 1/3 stops. Now add some wind and trees moving, or waves that you might want to render as more like waves and less like blurs, or whatever, and add dusk or dawn light, or maybe an overcast day - I just find I prefer 400 film to 100 by a wide margin already, and occasionally want more speed than that. Not often, but still TMY-2 is also plenty fine grained enough and sharp enough for me.

3. I have this growing desire to some day find a Graphic with working RF or the like and shoot 4x5 handheld. Don't ask me why given that I have a stable of 35mm cameras and an M645 Pro that takes the excellent Mamiya 80mm f/1.9. Sometimes "because I can" is reason enough. ;) So if I do that, I have fairly slow lenses that I want to stop down in any case for DOF, and in anything except bright outdoor sun, something pushable with good results to 3200 sounds appealing.

I totally agree that if you want the best quality possible of non-stationary subjects in very dim light, digital is the way to go, and if you want to use film, fast 35mm lenses with TMZ or that Mamiya 1.9 (I think there's an f/2 MF normal for some other camera too, I forget which now - SQ?) with Delta 3200 are the way to go.

Bottom line for me I guess it that I have available all the B&W LF film I actually need and then some. So I thought about it in terms of what I might want that would be fun - and that would be Delta 3200. But HP5+ pushes pretty well and since I like TXT in Diafine I've been meaning to get some TXP 4x5 and try tray developing in Diafine while Kodak is still around and I still can. :(


I forget if I've posted here, or not.
"Bring back ASA25!"
I'd love to see a slow speed color film in both 4x5 and 8x10.
I only have a 4x5 system right now, but...

See above.

Do you folks shoot under spot lights or something? I find I can rarely make decent use of film that slow in 35mm or MF. Granted I'm always shooting 4x5 off a tripod and less often (but still CAN) 35mm or MF. And what do you hope to get from such slow film that you don't have already with medium speed film? Are you printing so large that you see visible grain from TMX, Acros, Delta 100 or even FP4+? (Or Ektar 100 in color.)

[Brian C. Miller]

Now - I'd rather have Delta 3200 than another slow speed film ...

Did you know that Ilford will cut Delta 3200 in 8x10? They'll cut it from the same roll as the roll films, but you can get it cut for that size.

[buggz]

I've yet to shoot LF w/ lights.
Though, I am new to LF, I have already purchased quite a few "fast" LF lenses.
I find it difficult to shoot these outdoors in bright light w/ the slow LF shutters.



Do you folks shoot under spot lights or something? I find I can rarely make decent use of film that slow in 35mm or MF. Granted I'm always shooting 4x5 off a tripod and less often (but still CAN) 35mm or MF. And what do you hope to get from such slow film that you don't have already with medium speed film? Are you printing so large that you see visible grain from TMX, Acros, Delta 100 or even FP4+? (Or Ektar 100 in color.)


I forget if I've posted here, or not.
"Bring back ASA25!"
I'd love to see a slow speed color film in both 4x5 and 8x10.
I only have a 4x5 system right now, but...

[Roger Cole]

Eh? Are you stopping down? Or maybe your outdoor light is just not like mine. I'm very rarely shooting in the middle of the day on a bright day and not in shade. I shoot TMY-2 at 200 and have never, ever, felt like it was too fast. Of course if I wanted to open up for narrow depth of field like some of the LF portraits here - well, I wouldn't be shooting them in bright light, and probably on 100 film. I suppose slow film might be useful if you were doing those in really bright light. Efke makes a 25 speed B&W in sheets, BTW.

YMMV, I've not much use for film slower than 100. I guess some people do.

[Vaughn]

...YMMV, I've not much use for film slower than 100. I guess some people do.

Slow films make photographing in the sunlight with barrel lenses easier.

[Roger Cole]

I can see that. I don't have any barrel lenses and rarely photograph LF in bright sun. As I said, YMMV.

I can see that for folks who do, an ISO 25 film of more consistent quality (as opposed to Efke 25) could be valuable.