Film, more bad news.

[Rachel]

Hi John,

Hmm that is quite a bit cheaper although I can't recall the last time I used a 36 exposure film. Asda is not really convenient for me and I rarely shop in Tesco except for using their filling station. Don't think I could spend a whole hour in Tesco Don't like shopping in these big supermarkets ...

Boots is more convenient as it's in the city centre and I can fit it in better with looking around the shops. They charge £2 for a CD but I suspect it's not very high resolution. I was quite happy with the prints they produced.

I do have a film scanner a Minolta DiMage Scan Elite II but I don't use it much. My few experiments with it didn't produce good scans. Perhaps I should try again.

[John Parry]

Hi Rachel

You've still to get the films developed though, before you can scan them. I've got an HP 5370C with a light source. Cheap as chips on eBay (£25 I think). That's good for negatives, but fuzzy on slides. When you think about it, slides are raised off the glass by their frame, so they have to be out of focus. Should have a switch to raise or lower the sensor bar as required.

Don't know if you've used 7dayshop on the internet for film? Not worth buying 24 exposures at those prices - when you're ready, process it !

Regards - John

[jack]

Our local food chain, Hannefords, has stop photo processing, they had offered a 1-2 day service for about $6 for 24 exposure or 19 cent for prints from digital. Luckily the local pharmacy, Rite-Aide is doing a good business even at higher prices for a 1 hour service.

Jack

[Rachel]

Jack, I think that's true of almost everywhere. Here most small newsagents and food stores offered photo processing services but few do so now. Of course that does mean more trade for the remaining providers.

John,
I have an old Epson Perfection 1200 Photo which will scan negatives and slides. It was OK for medium format but was pushing things a bit for 35mm. I bought the film scanner hoping to get better scans of 35mm but it was not as easy as I expected.

I have thought of doing my own developing as I have all the tanks,etc but chemicals are quite expensive and only economical if you have lots of film to develop regularly.

[Deleted]

Commitment is only as solid as consumer demand. I suspect that within 5 years most of the major film producers will have got out of manufacturing and either sold or licensed their patents to Chinese companies. The tougher part will be color processing--especially if you don't live in a metropolitan area.

[GeneW]

Some good news!

Kodak has just introduced its first new print film in years: Ektar 100

www.popphoto.com/photonews/5518/kodak-intros-new-film.html

It will be interesting to pit this against Fuji Reala 100.

Those SLR's will have something to load for awhile yet :-)

Gene

[camerastoomany]

It hardly seems credible Kodak have released a new print film.

Of course, my ideas are obviously coloured by the various media, photo or otherwise and virtually none of them offer any possibility of an extended life for film. Also, the majority of members of the club I belong to, have switched or are intending to switch to digital. At a recent club outing, thirteen members were digitally armed and only little old me shot film.

Kodak surely wouldn't risk a new film product unless research indicates a far deeper commitment to film from many more photographers than we have been led to believe.

Writing leads to thinking, and it occurs to me that the three newest members of my club (probably the youngest members), are women and all prefer/intend to stick with film.

I'm a little 'off-thread' here but my thinking is that if indications are that film's future is not as grim as the pundits suggest, then the loss of a few processing labs may be more of a consolidation than a serious decline in processing availablility.

I use a mail-order lab in Western Australia and for print film they charge as follows-
12 exp. - $4.95
24 exp. - $7.95
36 exp. - $9.95 ------- add on a couple of dollars for postage.

There is a 2-3 day turnaround, but if the delay bothered me, I would use a local lab. I use mail-order because I save two dollars per film compared to the four local d&p outlets, all of which seem to be handling plenty of film.

[Deleted]

The introduction of the new Kodak film makes no sense given where the photographic market is going. It's not a matter of if film will become a very small niche market--it's when. And I still stick to the the no more than five years prediction as far a general availability of film AND processing. Film in some form will be available for the foreseeable future for collectors hand darkroom hobbyists. But unless someone sets off a bomb with an EMP that fries every printed circuit on Earth, film is close to dropping out of the photographic mainstream--at least in the 35mm format and the market for film will continue to shrink.

[renaldo]

Mr. Wayne...

Why did you have to go and bust the bubble attached to the idea that I would continue to be POSITIVE about a LONG life for film?

Now my day is even worse.

With 3 days of steady hard rain, my basement bedroom is flooded.

And I still cannot get rid of my Canon 30D outfit. Or is that an omen backing up your prediction??

[Deleted]

Sorry: Two years ago I wouldn't have been such a Grinch. But the photo world is moving faster than I ever thought it would. I take my key from Walgreen and Walmart and the state's one real camera/photography store. They all are moving out of the film field (except for processing film from disposables). And if digital has taken over in a state as far off the beaten path as we are, well. . . ..

[Randy]

Our Walmart is running ads on TV right now advertising discounts on photo developing, and says they have a brand new processing unit to process film faster.

[mickeyobe]

Daguerre and Matthew Brady and William Notman and many others were, I am sure, heartbroken at the demise of wet plate photography. They were sure that they would lose all control over their photographs and that photography was taking a giant step toward it own destruction.

Is there not a parallel between that and today's digital v/s film drama?

Mickey

[Deleted]

Good point Mickey. One somewhat similar situation I remember is when I first went to work for newspapers and most photography was still being done with either 4x5 or 2 1/4 film at the smallest. 35mm was considered ok for covering wars and for amateurs but it was felt really sharp photographs required a larger format. There were predictions that 35mm would never produce "quality" photographs. Five years later 35mm cameras were the norm at newspaper, 2 1/4 was a minority and 4x5 had all but disappeared except when mounted in a fixed position as a copy camera.

[SidW]

I agree with you Mickey and Wayne, and there've been other revolutions along the way too.

As for availability of film and processing, I settled for Kodachrome many years ago to avoid arguments with shop staff about burnt out highlights etc. You can at least point to detail on positive film. I buy it now through mail-order, but the only processing plant is in Switzerland about 1000 miles away, which adds about 33% to the total cost.

[GeneW]

brac, no feathers ruffled on my account. I agree about the happy coexistence of film and digital. I prefer digital for convenience and for colour, but for me film still holds the edge in B&W. Besides, as long as there are beautiful classic cameras that deserve to be used, I'm glad someone is using them.

Gene