Topic: thoughts on the future of e-6 film and processing

[db]

I shot some transparency film last week. (and that ends the news bulletin for today)

Seriously, while it is unusual for me to shoot 120 tran commercially these days, that's not the news. I went to the lab to collect the film and I was editing over their lightbox when the e6 manager wandered through reception.  Surprise surprise, he didn't look busy. I've known him for years and we chatted.

I asked if the amount of film they were seeing was still declining, or if it had flattened out. He said that it had largely stabilized,  at perhaps 20% of what was processed 5-6 years ago. His is one of very few state of the art, high volume, Refrema machines left in Australia.

Even though the time for installing these expensive machines has passed forever, he was confident that for them, having the machine paid off, and because e-6 was only a small part of their business, they could afford to run it for many years.

But he suggested that the biggest danger to the future of film products, lay in developments in the motion picture industry.

Not in the shooting of movie film in camera, but in the showing of the finished products. After all, when a blockbuster is released each screen, in each movie house has to have a print of that film. (I'll show my ignorance here, but) I'm guessing a full length feature must use about 10,000 feet of film, multiplied by the number of screens it shows at around the world. That's a lot of film.

Production companies are pushing for theaters to move to digital projection so they can save money on printing film, then loading heavy cannisters and physically shipping them all over. Movie houses are slow to change because the new projectors are expensive, and film technology works just fine thankyou.

But when digital projection takes over, Kodak et-al will take a huge hit and the fall-out will likely have a direct effect on stills shooters like us.

now,  this was just idle chat over a lightbox, but I was interested to hear his thoughts... 

[This-is-damion]

ive heard similar...somewhere on the internet of course.  basically thats its these film sales that balance out costs for the big players and once they go.....we will follow!

Agree e-6 is a worry but im still quite sure that c-41 film will never go away (even though that is not the point of this thread  )   -but will no doubt reduce to a few specialist players...although this is all a long way off,  but if companies can still turn a small profit making 110 film, 126, 127 and so on then 35 and 120  must have a future...must it not??

[Ailsa]

but if companies can still turn a small profit making 110 film, 126, 127 and so on then 35 and 120  must have a future...must it not??

The thing I've never understood about economics (well, to be truthful, I don't understand anything about economics) is the idea that profit isn't enough - it's about how much profit. But at what point does simple 'profit' become 'not enough profit'? I've known magazines that were profitable be closed down, and I've heard stories of others that have a ?3 million annual turnover, of which only ?10,000 is profit, and yet they're kept going because turnover is more important than profit. Seems like a contradiction to me.

Er - I'm not quite sure of the point I'm trying to make here. If someone else would care to enlighten me, please feel free to step in. 

[db]

Search me Ailsa- I'm a photographer too, remember..

Over in La-La land where I prefer to hang out, it's not unheard of for a company to take pride in fostering an industry and serving it's clients as loyally as it does it's shareholders.

On the other hand- to look at a recent example here in Aust.  The biggest and likely the most profitable media company in the country with TV interests  and a publishing house of over 60 national magazine titles, flogged off the lot most likely because there is even more money to be made in off-shore casinos. Daddy had recently died and the heir couldn't give a ** for company history and tradition.

[Skorj]

Interesting perspective there... I had not thought of that. Film stock is consumed in massive amounts to make a movie too. Perhaps we'll all be buying Indian made Bollywood stock in a few years...

[Ed Wenn]

Don, in some circles "La La Land" means Los Angeles...I presume you  were actually referring to the fictional, Don's World, and not LA?

 

I've heard the movie industry story a few times too and it might make sense; it'll certainly be another nail in the coffin if the movie industry switches wholesale to digital, but I don't think that's going to happen anytime soon.

I had a similar conversation with the manager of a high street lab in London (with pro leanings and services) and her take on the "film will be here for a while yet" subject was based around the storage problems inherent in digital photography and the fact that as a mass market proposition it's still confusing to sections of the general public. She said that her lab gets people bringing in their home computers saying, "It's crashed, can you get my photos off it for me?". The computer is increasingly being seen as a storage device for photos and so when it breaks who do you take it to? Well, the photo lab of course. Sounds screwy, but it also makes sense.

Also, she was saying that a significant portion of interested amatuers switch back to film after they lose/delete/corrupt their first set of valuable digi images. When's the last time you accidentally deleted a negative?

Worth bearing in mind here that this person is the franchise manager of a huge high UK street processing chain (Snappy Snaps, Wardour St branch, London) who have based their core business on printing digital images. She had no axe to grind and is not a film nutter like we are; she was just telling it how she saw it and her view was that there were still a lot of things that need sorting out with the digital format before it can eclipse film at the things that is is good at.

I'm not niaive enough to think that just because something's good that means it'll be around forever, but I'm pretty confident that the demand is still there and that in the case of film we're good for a while yet.

p.s.
Don, as a matter of interest how do you store the digital images that you use in your day job and how long do you plan to keep them? Are you thinking 10, 20, 30 years ahead? Same question Susan and all the other pros out there who use digital in their day jobs.