Time for a film company dead pool?

[redmondson]

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_8_21/ai_63583781

Whether or not it's viable to produce film as described in the
article is still an open question. The original paper was published
in 1999, which has provided quite the lead time for additional
applied research.

Kmac

With Ilford and Agfa both announcing the demise, more or less, of
their film divisions this week, it makes me think that digital will
be forced on us sooner than I had previously imagined. As a matter
of fact, yesterday morning, I said to a friend, "who's next, Agfa?"
ten minutes before seeing the story. After telling him about Agfa,
he said, "Who's next, Konica?"

Well, anybody else have any ideas? I expect, of the majors, Kodak
and Fuji will be the last men standing.

I hope not Konica, by the way. I love their 120 infrared film!

--
http://www.pbase.com/redmondson

 

[stephenmelvin]

If you were to bet on who falls next, who would you bet on? RedDawg said Polaroid, but they've already fallen, and were amongst the first, actually.

Does 3M still manufacture film? Who else it out there, amongst the majors? Konica, Kodak and Fuji are what come to mind. Who's in more trouble: Kodak or Fuji? And even more important: will I be able to buy Tri-X in 2009?

With Ilford and Agfa both announcing the demise, more or less, of
their film divisions this week, it makes me think that digital will
be forced on us sooner than I had previously imagined. As a matter
of fact, yesterday morning, I said to a friend, "who's next, Agfa?"
ten minutes before seeing the story. After telling him about Agfa,
he said, "Who's next, Konica?"

Well, anybody else have any ideas? I expect, of the majors, Kodak
and Fuji will be the last men standing.

I hope not Konica, by the way. I love their 120 infrared film!

 

[pso]

That is awesome work. I am going there soon and I wish I had time to set up such a long exposure.

--
pakety

 

[RedDawg]

See:

http://www.polaroid.com/index.jsp

Does 3M still manufacture film? Who else it out there, amongst the
majors? Konica, Kodak and Fuji are what come to mind. Who's in more
trouble: Kodak or Fuji? And even more important: will I be able to
buy Tri-X in 2009?

With Ilford and Agfa both announcing the demise, more or less, of
their film divisions this week, it makes me think that digital will
be forced on us sooner than I had previously imagined. As a matter
of fact, yesterday morning, I said to a friend, "who's next, Agfa?"
ten minutes before seeing the story. After telling him about Agfa,
he said, "Who's next, Konica?"

Well, anybody else have any ideas? I expect, of the majors, Kodak
and Fuji will be the last men standing.

I hope not Konica, by the way. I love their 120 infrared film!

 

[BJL]

the Hubble Space telescope is my favorite digital camera, and it (and other telescopes) can take ultra long exposures, using electronic sensors. they usually try to avoid the speed lines though.

 

[BJL]

I understand that the making of "old technology" monochrome films like HP5 and FP4 can be done on a relatively small scale, so products like that could easily be picked up. Maybe newer stuff like Delta too. Like Polaroid films, I am optimistic that they will continue to be made and even sold under the same Ilford name, no matter who actually buys the rights. Unlike Polaroid, these could have a long, niche market future.

At the other extreme, everything about Kodachrome seems to involve large scale operation; I expect it to go first amongst the well-known slide films. Kodak has already decimated their professional print film offerings.

 

[stephenmelvin]

Polaroid is a shadow if its former self. I'm pretty sure they already went bankrupt. By my estimation, they have already suffered the fatal blow. We're just waiting for the twitching to cease.

http://www.polaroid.com/index.jsp

Does 3M still manufacture film? Who else it out there, amongst the
majors? Konica, Kodak and Fuji are what come to mind. Who's in more
trouble: Kodak or Fuji? And even more important: will I be able to
buy Tri-X in 2009?

With Ilford and Agfa both announcing the demise, more or less, of
their film divisions this week, it makes me think that digital will
be forced on us sooner than I had previously imagined. As a matter
of fact, yesterday morning, I said to a friend, "who's next, Agfa?"
ten minutes before seeing the story. After telling him about Agfa,
he said, "Who's next, Konica?"

Well, anybody else have any ideas? I expect, of the majors, Kodak
and Fuji will be the last men standing.

I hope not Konica, by the way. I love their 120 infrared film!

 

[RedDawg]

We're just waiting for the twitching to cease.

Hey, but there's still twitching, right? I'll give you odds.

http://www.polaroid.com/index.jsp

Does 3M still manufacture film? Who else it out there, amongst the
majors? Konica, Kodak and Fuji are what come to mind. Who's in more
trouble: Kodak or Fuji? And even more important: will I be able to
buy Tri-X in 2009?

With Ilford and Agfa both announcing the demise, more or less, of
their film divisions this week, it makes me think that digital will
be forced on us sooner than I had previously imagined. As a matter
of fact, yesterday morning, I said to a friend, "who's next, Agfa?"
ten minutes before seeing the story. After telling him about Agfa,
he said, "Who's next, Konica?"

Well, anybody else have any ideas? I expect, of the majors, Kodak
and Fuji will be the last men standing.

I hope not Konica, by the way. I love their 120 infrared film!

 

[Michael Meissner]

It is not easy, but possible nonetheless to take this picture on a
DSLR.

1. use bulb for 6 or 7 hours of exposure with a battery pack
2. use a lens with f/22
3. set to the lowest ISO
4. use one or more ND filters if necessary if the lowest ISO is not
low enough.

Some noise reduction might be necessary (e..g. dark frame
averaging/subtraction)

I would think you would need to cool the CCD/CMOS for extended periods of time. Doable, though a niche market.

 

[thyll]

ah, forgot about that one

If I remember correctly, the CCD in Hubble is the first highres. CCD (it's 800x600, very highres. 10 yrs ago).

BTW, the CCD on mar rovers are only 1mp yet the pictures they sent back are so good. These CCD were made by Canadian company. The pixels on them are I think more than 10 times bigger(not sure, read about it long time ago) than ones in CCDs used in consumer digicams.

the Hubble Space telescope is my favorite digital camera, and it
(and other telescopes) can take ultra long exposures, using
electronic sensors. they usually try to avoid the speed lines
though.

 

[Day Hiker]

The most common
application right now are dental x-rays, most new systems are
digital. Besides the speed advantage, they use 100x less radiation.

I just visited a new dentist. He took x-rays digitally. No dark room, no chemcials. The x-rays were on a large LCD screen within minutes. Amazing.

No cavities either.

--
Raining in Colorado,

Jim Pilcher

'The virtue of the camera is not the power it has to transform the photographer into an artist, but the impulse it gives him to keep on looking.' -- Brooks Anderson

 

[k-mac]

umm...that's the nature of research and development.

Research and product development can both take a very long time, and often overlap. The referenced articles summarize a Nature paper from 1999 (see my post above). If you believe the quote from one of those articles then it would take (generously) some 4 or so years for product to emerge from the basic research. With that said, there is no guarantee that Agfa has been putting any effort/funds into what has been reported. Further, as Joseph W. noted there may be substantial obstacles preventing this technology from seeing the light of day.

Published research is not like computers that quickly become outdated in
a matter of months or a few years! ..good thing..

 

[Gene E. McCluney]

The 35mm release print market is huge. Distributors are releasing nationwide and worldwide
now all at once, so the print orders are huge, larger than they used to be.

2000 prints of each title, each film being at least 14,000ft. long in 35mm. Agfa and Kodak

are large suppliers of color release positive stock. I would think that that would be the

major market for 35mm perforated film stock in the near future. Of course Ilford is B/W
primarily. (In England).

Yes, it is true that the Cinema is sloooooowly moving towards digital presentation, but

this will take years, because the exhibitors are reluctant to convert at todays extremely

high prices, and the image quality with the average digital presentation is not as good
as film.

Gene McCluney
McCluney Commercial Photography

 

[AlanG]

There are other issues affecting film usage. Environmental impact (read pollution) was significant in large operations such as the US military. They moved to digital a long time ago, partly for this reason.

The reality is that outside of fine art use, there are precious few markets where film is likely to be the medium of choice. And think of how much water is contaminated and wasted by the average amateur who processes and washes black and white film and prints.

Kodak should be one of the last to stop making film. They have a huge distribution network in place and still have a large growing market in Asia. Plus they have a wide range of other products to justify keeping the distribution network active. As long as there is still any profit to be made, film will be sold. But I doubt that film technology will progress much.

Other than film, chemicals and paper, what other products do Agfa and Ilford sell?

Even if commercially made film disappears, the photographer can always make his own emulsion. That should really make it a fine art.

Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com

 

[stephenmelvin]

When I was in school, we used to joke that there could be no such thing as an environmentalist photographer, for that very reason. However, even with digital there are not only environmental, but human, issues. A rare element, and the name eludes me, is used in most modern electronics, particularly cell phones, but I'm certain also in digital cameras. Proceeds from the sale of this element are funding a bloody civil war in Africa (I want to say Congo, but alas my memory's not serving me so well tonight).

The socially concious person has few choices if he wants to be a photographer. Personally, if that were a driving issue for me, I'd choose environmental impact over the deaths of thousands of people. The environment is repairable, dead people are not. But, I suspect like many people, I don't think about that. Though I am using a four year-old cell phone and have no plans to replace it...

There are other issues affecting film usage. Environmental impact
(read pollution) was significant in large operations such as the US
military. They moved to digital a long time ago, partly for this
reason.

The reality is that outside of fine art use, there are precious few
markets where film is likely to be the medium of choice. And think
of how much water is contaminated and wasted by the average amateur
who processes and washes black and white film and prints.

Kodak should be one of the last to stop making film. They have a
huge distribution network in place and still have a large growing
market in Asia. Plus they have a wide range of other products to
justify keeping the distribution network active. As long as there
is still any profit to be made, film will be sold. But I doubt
that film technology will progress much.
Other than film, chemicals and paper, what other products do Agfa
and Ilford sell?

Even if commercially made film disappears, the photographer can
always make his own emulsion. That should really make it a fine
art.

Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com

 

[AlanG]

A rare element, and the name eludes me, is used in
most modern electronics, particularly cell phones, but I'm certain
also in digital cameras...

This is a little weird. You could be right, but I am not aware of the element you are referring to, nor the problem. Keep in mind that a lot of film cameras have electronics in them too. Besides, silver mining had its social impact too.

I was not specifically referring to morality but to law. A lot of jurisdictions are sensitive to water polution and water waste. Labs have to clean the water, recover silver and properly dispose of waste. This is a hassle and can be expensive. While there is some envronmental concern with the manufacturing of digital equipment, inks, inkjet paper, cds and other supplies, I imagine that there is far less impact than with film and processing. There certainly are way fewer materials used. Also, most of us no longer have to make many trips to our suppliers or to our labs. And we don't have to FedEx or messenger a lot of original film to the client and back. (A single CD one way will often do the trick.)

Of course there are various productivity and economic reasons to use digital instead of film. So I'm hard pressed to see how many institutions could justifysticking with film.

Alan Goldstein

http://www.goldsteinphoto.com

 

[BobTrips]

Yes, it is true that the Cinema is sloooooowly moving towards
digital presentation, but this will take years, because the exhibitors are
reluctant to convert at todays extremely high prices,

After watching how rapidly digital still photography is replacing film I'd be very reluctant to predict 'years'.

There are significant cost savings with digital for the portion of the industry up the stream from the local theater. These savings may well cause the movie production companies and distributors to underwrite the cost of digital conversion.

and the image quality with the average digital presentation is not as good
as film.

You'll get some serious disagreement here. Remember that when you speak of 35 mm movie film you're only talking about half-frame (APS sized) images.

And in the theater you're often looking at a copy of a copy of a copy ... that's been run through a projector a few times and acquired a share of dirt and scratches.

--
bob
Latest offering - 'Dusk on the Buriganga'
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
Shots from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal).
Pictures for friends, not necessarily my best.

http://www.trekearth.com/members/BobTrips/photos/
My better 'attempts'.

 

[Photovalve]

I understand that the making of "old technology" monochrome films
like HP5 and FP4 can be done on a relatively small scale, so
products like that could easily be picked up. Maybe newer stuff
like Delta too. Like Polaroid films, I am optimistic that they will
continue to be made and even sold under the same Ilford name, no
matter who actually buys the rights. Unlike Polaroid, these could
have a long, niche market future.

In much the same way that there is still a specialist market for vinyl over CD there may be a specialist 'cottage industry' for film. With the web as a marketing tool it may even keep a small company in business, but I think the days of large-scale film production are over.

 

[twinpot]

Chip making relies on some pretty nasty chemicals, and a quite a bit of energy. Then you need to factor in all sorts of other things like product lifecycles, supporting technologies etc. etc.

I'd guess there is not a lot of difference in pollution when the whole cycle is considered.

 

[Michael Meissner]

Chip making relies on some pretty nasty chemicals, and a quite a
bit of energy. Then you need to factor in all sorts of other
things like product lifecycles, supporting technologies etc. etc.

I'd guess there is not a lot of difference in pollution when the
whole cycle is considered.

Yeah, but most of us only a camera once every few years. I figure I've shot 20,000 - 30,000 shots since I got into digital photography. So you save on developing that much film if nothing else, and a lot of those shots will never get printed (though some shots are printed quite a bit).