Kodak Ends Production of Acetate Base For Photographic Film

McGruber writes "According to a report by Rochester, NY CBS affiliate WROC Kodak has ended in-house production of the cellulose acetate base that is the primary component of photographic film. Popular Photography magazine adds that, for more than 100 years, Kodak has made the acetate in house in bulk, providing the structural basis for the company's film. Now, with Kodak in bankruptcy, the company is firing 60 workers and shutting down the acetate machinery. Citing the decline in interest in film photography as a primary cause, Kodak will no longer undertake the time intensive process of acetate production. Thankfully, the company has large stockpiles of the material, and once that runs out they will source it from elsewhere."

Comments

Sad, but inevitable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Film has a wonderful look, but the convenience of digital just means this has to happen.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[kevkingofthesea]

I agree. There's a quality to film that digital has yet to produce.

As a medium for documentation, digital photography is superior, but for artistic purposes, film is still a strong contender. There's something charming about the darkroom process, as well.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Film does have a distinct look that digital doesn't. It is nothing akin to ridiculous audiophile claims.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[AaronLS]

One thing is for certain, there's alot of things that are alot easier and cheaper to do in digital. I did alot of long exposures and night photography. Trying to get a balance between grainyness and being too dark is challenging when the feedback you get on your settings is a couple weeks later. You can go through a whole roll trying different settings. One time I went to pick up prints and the lab gave me the negatives and said they didn't turn out. I had to point out to them a couple shots on the negatives that were of a little bio-luminescent grub. They were skeptical but went and printed them for me and they turned out fine. That was an entire roll of film just for two pictures.

I also got alot better because I was getting immediate feedback when using manual settings.

It also makes doing timelapse photography feasible on an amateur budget.

What's really odd to me is the digital cameras are not any better at capturing light. I saw a documentary on a large telescope that talked about how much light is not captured by film, and what a huge amount more is captured by a CCD, which is important for imaging faint objects. Maybe they have a better CCD than what you get in cameras.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Hatta]

The real downside to this is that film is still the gold standard for autoradiography. Nothing beats the sensitivity and resolution of Kodak Biomax x-ray films.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[AaronLS]

Not to mention having to keep a notebook on settings you used for each photo so that you could learn what is working.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Not necessarily true. Digital shots even against high quality film will be cleaner than film at equivalent sensitivity. Grain will always be more apparent from a film shot.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Also, having analog films is still a proven way of storing media. Despite the fact that digital archives should be transferrable between sotrage technologies as time goes on, we still have little real-world experience with trying to use them to preserve stuff as long as possible (and you know what happened with all those NASA data tapes) so having those things on film can't hurt.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[PhotoJim]

Negative film has much superior exposure latitude to digital. There wasn't a need for HDR techniques with negative film - you could capture the dynamic range on the film. (Granted there were few ways to get all that range on paper, but there are now thanks to digital manipulation.)

Also, there's the issue of archivability. Black and white negative materials are inherently archival if processed at all well. Furthermore, this archivalness is passive, requiring little to no effort on the behalf of the photographer. Digital requires migration from device to device on a certain schedule, or data loss is inevitable. (Of course, if you do actually migrate it, you have a perfect copy of your data, but you actually have to do it.)

There are a lot of older technologies that have serious advantages over modern ones - I'm not a big fan of vinyl records (CD was more than good enough for me) but I buy CDs in preference to downloaded lossy formats, and even use fountain pens because of their superior anti-fatigue properties compared to ballpoint and gel pens (and their environmental superiority). Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[PhotoJim]

This is true except at really slow film speeds, where film is equal. But photography isn't just about grain/noise, it's also about tonality.

Besides, even if film photography were inferior in every way (and it isn't), it's still fun. A hand-printed black-and-white enlargement from my darkroom gives me way more pleasure than something I did in Photoshop and printed on an inkjet, no wait, giclee printer.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[hjf]

you haven't mentioned that MF film is much cheaper than the digital equivalent. and 4x5 digital? LOL

Lol your username rings a bell...

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, digital has different (but fewer) artifacts. With digital far surpassing film in quality now, it's possible to simulate all aspects of film, and this is routinely done in the movie industry to match the look of CGI and film footage (where the whole process isn't digital already). The claim that film is in some way better than digital is exactly as ridiculous as audiophile claims, and for the same reasons.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Duncan J Murray]

Agreed.

I still mainly shoot film, but I'm quite happy to shoot digital when needed (there's no denying the convenience, ability to work at low and high ISOs, and that the quality is good nowadays, particularly for full frame).

But I prefer the tonal reproduction of film (colour negative still handles highlights better than the top-of-the-range Nikon fullframes, having just recently used the D3 and D4 for a couple of weddings), the existence of only one artefact - which can be quite likeable, and much preferable to digital noise, and the spot-on colour accuracy.

I think the overall look with film is more realistic, objects have more depth. Digital gives a more controlled look, which looks like a painting of the scene. Film looks like the actual scene with a thin film of graininess in front of it.

(the problem is getting it processed and scanned somewhere good that will show the full qualities of the medium)

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Lunix Nutcase]

I wasn't making a quality judgement. Simply stating that it is not ad hard to spot the difference as the person claimed.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[BlackHawk-666]

And I guarantee you could tell the difference with black and white film. A digital shot will look like the sensor used to take the shot. Unless you use Photoshop to apply 'grain' and tonal changes to the shot it will lack character. That's not to say it will be a bad shot, just that it will be clean, the grain will be digital in nature, and it will have fairly predictable tonal characteristics.

When using film I have massive amounts of control over how my image is reproduced. Using combinations of negative and developer, push and pull processing or even cross processing I can achieve effects that you can only achieve in Photoshop and only as a reasonable approximate assuming it even has an analogue for the process I've used. I can further vary this via my selection of printing paper and even toners within the development baths.

Photoshop has only very basic settings for applying a 'film' grain to an image. B&W negatives on varying film stock developed at differing temperatures in varying developer baths can produce a vast array of results you can only dream of.

e.g. Ilford Delta 400 Pro developed with Rodinal at 20 degrees and printed onto a matte paper stock.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[lgw]

Tube amps do have a distinct sound that silicon doesn't. It is nothing akin to ridiculous videophile claims.

Some people like their artifacts. What can you say?

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Replicated to a degree. It still looks artificially processed and not like real film.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Lunix Nutcase]

Yes some do. But those artifacts are actually real and measurable unlike the phony quality claims made over ridiculously priced cables.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Lunix Nutcase]

What is bullshit? Film and digital have distinct looks and their own artifacts. Claiming that film does not look distinct is the only bullshit.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[femtobyte]

Negative film has much superior exposure latitude to digital. There wasn't a need for HDR techniques with negative film - you could capture the dynamic range on the film.

That used to be true, but not so much anymore. With actual >12 stop dynamic range now available at the push of a button from better digital sensors, film is hard-pressed to keep up. Yes, with careful specialized home development of particular black-and-white films for extremely low contrast response, you might still be able to eke out a little more --- but not in color. And no, if you examine most negatives, they aren't capturing a >10 stop dynamic range: the dark areas are unexposed film base (will print to undifferentiated black), and the brightest areas are at maximum density with no detail --- only the soft rolloff of the transition to maximum density gives an appearance of greater dynamic range, by not creating the harsh obvious clipping artifacts sometimes produced by digital systems.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[PhotoJim]

We might know each other... :)

You're right, I was talking about 35mm film. 4x5 and 120 film are different matters entirely.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[femtobyte]

Fortunately, compared to typical film with reciprocity failure effects, I can properly expose a dark scene using a much shorter shutter time on digital than film with nominally identical ISO rating (but actually responding with far lower ISO sensitivity in low light). Many low-light situations that require a 10 minute film exposure can be done with a 1 minute digital exposure. Not saying that there aren't some niche applications where film still excels digital (e.g. large format captures, or wherever the particular aesthetic of a film emulsion is artistically desired), but the range of "technically superior" applications for film has shrunk immensely (and is still shrinking). And, now that heat dissipation / efficiency is being taken as a serious design consideration for video work, newer digital sensors are being made to work acceptably even for "continuous use" applications.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[jythie]

Well, setting aside the various quirks of the two technologies, it can be argued that digital has not quite caught up with film when it comes to resolution, though it is a tricky argument since both have such a wide range depending on how much you are willing to spend. By price point though, esp at the higher end, I would argue film still has a pretty good buffer.... though at the high end the lenses become cost prohibitive for actually getting any use out of the best film.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[BrokenHalo]

Well, setting aside the various quirks of the two technologies, it can be argued that digital has not quite caught up with film when it comes to resolution...

Perhaps not any more. When I was a teenager, a 60x60 mm format Rolleiflex (or, if you were wealthy, a Hasselblad) was regarded as a "medium-format" camera, and if you wanted really high resolution in your final prints, it wasn't uncommon to use 5x4" or even 8x10" cameras with low-speed film in order to get the finest size of grain in proportion to that on the final print.

But even the most committed troglodyte has to admit those machines (and all their associated paraphernalia) were pretty fucking cumbersome. For the majority of people who used 35mm format cameras, resolution in even a 5x4" print is pretty poor by comparison with what is available now. (However, if you care about these things, there is the trade-off against colour that I mentioned in an earler post).

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[jythie]

Generally the high resolution film was for situations where resolution mattered. You generally did not see many general consumers using it. Kinda like medium and large format.. not much extra functionality if you are filling a scrap book, but much better for other situations.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Ol Olsoc]

I agree. There's a quality to film that digital has yet to produce.

As a medium for documentation, digital photography is superior, but for artistic purposes, film is still a strong contender. There's something charming about the darkroom process, as well.

I've found that the "quality" of film is a whole lot related to the compression of the highlights and bottom end, a distortion that can only be partially compensated for in the printing process. This is quantified by the famous S-Curve of silver based emulsions. I've also founf a way to emulate it in th emore modern digital, which has what would normally be a more desirable straight line characteristic. I've been able to emulate the S curve pretty closely in Photoshop. But it certainly isn't a superiority, its somewhat similar to thinking tube amps sound better, when what is really happening is that they have a pleasing - to some - distortion characteristic.

Where I have found that digital really falls short is in the studio techniques of light painting, timeed gel exposures, or anything that takes long exposures, This is being addressed, and is not anywhere as big a problem as it was for my first digi - the Nikon D1. Way too much sensor noise. But i is being addressed, and for 99.9 percent of the time, it isn't a problem.

But as long as you are enjoying yourself, and putting out what the customer wants, then that's a good thing.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Ol Olsoc]

All that digital manipulation to make it look like film always looks artificial. It's easy to spot the difference between something actually shot from film with true film grain over artificial grain added to digital.

Of course it does. FIlm by itself looks artificial. The qualities that make film, film, and the very look, are distortions. I've worked with film long and hard over the years to lesson and compensate for those distortions.

You could even sort of emulate digital with film by shooting tri-X at an exposure index of 25, then develop for 50 percent of the normal time. ( you'd better be in strict control of your processing at that short developing time ) You'll end up with a relatively flat negative with a long straight line characteristic. You'll need to very carefully match your printing paper and processing though, otherwise you'll throw all that better contrast in the whites and blacks away. There you go, a simulated digital image.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Mal-2]

The primary advantage to digital comes to those at lower skill levels. First, you can look at your results immediately to know if you "got it". Second, you can and will take a lot more pictures because all they cost you is battery power. This means even if your keeper rate is low, you will still snag a few. Third, that high shooting rate also means a more rapid improvement in skill level, assuming you actually WANT to improve. Finally, experimenting with long exposures, light painting, multi-flash, and other such techniques no longer requires firing off an entire roll of film (for 35mm at least) and developing it before finding out you were doing it all wrong. This means more willingness to do them in the first place.

Now that sensors are starting to catch up with film, it's not even necessary to worry about how techniques differ between film and digital. It should be possible (and more practical) for fledgling photographers to stay in the digital realm for their entire careers, unless they're forced to use someone else's equipment on a job.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Mal-2]

I thought of that but it wasn't really true. Some of the better 35mm film cameras would print the technical data in the stripe between the frames. YOUR camera may not have (mine sure didn't), but it's not a defect of the medium.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Ol Olsoc]

Negative film has much superior exposure latitude to digital. There wasn't a need for HDR techniques with negative film - you could capture the dynamic range on the film. (Granted there were few ways to get all that range on paper,

Do you mean dynamic range? Exposure latitude is the ability to be overexposed or underexposed. And I used to routinely overexpose C-41 film. A stop or even 2 stops more exposure was pretty nice, although the printers didn't like the extra exposure time the negs took.

As for no need for HDR techniques? No way. My year of learning the Zone system tells me that is not the case. The ultimate Dynamic range is governed by the paper with the greatest range, and can only be achieved by optimal exposure and processing. Otherwise it's a crapshoot matching neg contrast to paper contrast.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Ol Olsoc]

Replicated to a degree. It still looks artificially processed and not like real film.

This is the issue. People who claim that film is real, and digital is not,

Dont' get me wrong, I've been in Photography since the late 70's, and a professional since the early 80's. And I've done a lot of film of every variety.

But the one thing - film isn't "real". The struggles you have to go to to get just an approximation of the real color or lightness or darkeness with film is monumental. If you aren't struggling, you are not operating under very strict conditions.

Monitoring chemical activity, calculating chemical use via time and paper exposure, making sure replenishment rates are under control, and not too much or too little. Temps to within a 1/10th a degree, paper tested and stored under ideal frozen conditions in a huge freezer, and aways of the exact same batch. Running tests on new batches to determine the changes form the last batch. A few days of working with a Macbeth chart would free you of any illusions that film is somehow the "real" imaging material when compared to anything else.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[msauve]

"Unless you use Photoshop to apply 'grain' and tonal changes to the shot it will lack character."

You misspelled "familiar defects."

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[PhotoJim]

Well, dynamic range and exposure latitude are linked. If you have wide dynamic range, you have wide exposure latitude. Two sides of the same coin.

As for HDR techniques, it's easy to get a wide range of light on the film, really - you can make it even wider using the Zone system (with colour negative film it's barely necessary however, if you expose sensibly). I agree, it's hard to get that whole range onto paper, but at least the detail is there for you to work with. Blow out the highlights, and there's no going back.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[wonkey_monkey]

not like real film.

Would that be Agfapan AP 100, Vista 200/400, Velvia 100F, Sensia 400, True definition 400, HP5 Plus, Kodak Ultramax 400, Rollei Ortho...

You see where I'm going with this.

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[ratbag]

With regard to the long exposures, I've found digital makes one aspect of the process much, much better, and that's the oldest argument in favour of digital in general: experimentation is quick and cheap. I've started using Lee's Big Stopper recently and I'm pleased I can chuck away (without developing) 97% of my early work with it!

Re:Sad, but inevitable.

[Ol Olsoc]

Well, dynamic range and exposure latitude are linked. If you have wide dynamic range, you have wide exposure latitude. Two sides of the same coin.

As for HDR techniques, it's easy to get a wide range of light on the film, really - you can make it even wider using the Zone system

The zone system makes it possible to get the best range out of the paper you are printing on, and tailoring the negative to that. The number 2 papers in most brands had the widest dynamic range, with the most distinguishable shades between bright white, and pitch black. With real care and control, I could get 12 zones. Uncontrolled processing was usually going to get you 10 at most, although peolpe could get lucky but not know how they did it. The exposure and processing of the negative was performed to make the scene's range of brightness fit onto that paper. I'd say that instead of making the dynamic range wider, the zone system just utilizes the paper to it's widest ability.

(with colour negative film it's barely necessary however, if you expose sensibly). I agree, it's hard to get that whole range onto paper, but at least the detail is there for you to work with. Blow out the highlights, and there's no going back.

Color negative film is indeed amazing with regard to how much it can be overexposed. My tests at the time indicated that rating 100 ASA color film at an exposure index of 3 was about the limit of how much it could be abused. 5 stops, for heaven's sake. Going the other way towards underexposure was not very forgiving though. I always exposed my 100 ASA at an index of 50, the extra cushion was a lifesaver.

Don't worry...

[fluxmov]

...when the last commercial film runs out, we'll be coating glass plates with home-mixed emulsions!

Re:Don't worry...

[Anonymous Coward]

...when the last commercial film runs out, we'll be coating glass plates with home-mixed emulsions!

Some of us are. It's called wet plate collodion and it's a hell of a lot of fun. Film production has drastically declined in the past decade but there are still those photographers among us who shoot primarily with traditional media.

Re:Don't worry...

[Mashiki]

Watch out, all those "dangerous chemicals" might get you labeled as a terrorist or something. I kid, back in highschool we did exactly that, and learned how to make our own emulsions as well as developing film in a dark room, even how to make our own dark rooms at home. Wasn't all that long ago either, back in the mid-90's. I took a trip up to my old highschool to see if they still did this, and it's a big o'l nope. Now they send the film off for processing, because those chemicals are too dangerous for kids(teenagers) to use.

Re:Don't worry...

[benjfowler]

When I was working for a lab, I used to developer big colour enlargements (> 8x10" in a darkroom) from the spent chemicals out of the regular C-41 enlarger/printer. We didn't even need to mix any chemicals for the job.

Re:Don't worry...

[Ol Olsoc]

...when the last commercial film runs out, we'll be coating glass plates with home-mixed emulsions!

There are practitioners of what is known as alternative photographic processes that are doing that right now. Also making their own printing paper. One of the favorites is albumen paper, which is made from chicken eggs, the whites only, coated on paper of choice, and sensitized with silver nitrate.

The large negative is exposed in contact with the paper in a frame that is hinged. After seeing actual darkening of the paper in the frame, it was taken out and processed.. The results can be stunning, in keeping with the aesthetic.

There are a few other types that are easy to make, such as Cyanotypes, closely related to the old time blueprints. Nice tonal range, but a striking blue. T?hes can be toned into a more acceptable color by a process caleed "Van Dyke", which leavs the image color as a dark brown.

As much as I am into digital, th ealternative processes are awesome for art work.

Re:Don't worry...

[Hognoxious]

I have an old 4x5 view camera that I haven't used for some time. I've kept it partially to try those kind of things when I get some copious free time. Sheet film/plate holders should be easiest to "load your own".

I saw a machine on some antiques show that was from a seaside pier or amusement park. It printed onto metal discs, to be used as souvenir medallions. I'd love to try that process (if I can ever find out what it is). I assume it's not too complex, if it was at least partially susceptible to automation.

Re:Don't worry...

[Ol Olsoc]

I have an old 4x5 view camera that I haven't used for some time. I've kept it partially to try those kind of things when I get some copious free time.

Although I com out on the side of digital for work, using film in a view camera is one of the most interesting ways to work. The view camera forces you to use a slower pace, and the images show it. Relaxing sort of work.

I saw a machine on some antiques show that was from a seaside pier or amusement park. It printed onto metal discs, to be used as souvenir medallions. I'd love to try that process (if I can ever find out what it is). I assume it's not too complex, if it was at least partially susceptible to automation.

That sure sounds like tintype. That was one of the earliest quick turnaround systems. It can be adapted very well to 4 by 5 camera work. Should be a lot of fun.

Re:Don't worry...

[Hognoxious]

The view camera forces you to use a slower pace, and the images show it. Relaxing sort of work.

One thing I discovered is you can really only use it when you're on your own, or in the company of "serious" photographers. Otherwise everyone's nagging you for taking so long. Which, as you say, is sort of the point.

That sure sounds like tintype. That was one of the earliest quick turnaround systems.

I did some googling after I posted and came to the same conclusion. Odd, I'd heard of it but didn't make the connection. Getting old I guess.

It can be adapted very well to 4 by 5 camera work. Should be a lot of fun.

Well the hoglet just turned three. I'll get back to you and post my images on whatever serves as the internet in about 15 years...

Re:Company stops producing product that nobody wan

[Chris Mattern]

.. News at 11.

But no film.

Thankfully

[Algae_94]

I hope everyone else is thankful that Kodak still has large stockpiles of a material that there is so little commercial interest in, they're stopping production. Why do we need bullshit remarks at the end of TFS? Just post the story and leave the editorials to the comments.

Re:Company stops producing product that nobody wan

[aliquis]

.. News at 11.

But no film.

Kodak moment.

Re:Thankfully

[CRCulver]

Thankfully, in 20 years we'll have rich trust-fund hipster-kids developing on film "before it was cool."

Already happening. My local bookstore, unable to make much of a profit on books alone and therefore offering all kinds of hipster items, does a brisk trade in the retro film cameras from Lomography. Lord knows where they develop the film, though. (Unless setting up your own darkroom is a hipster fad I've overlooked.)

Kodak vs. stockpile

[steelfood]

Who else has money that Kodak will go under first before they exhaust their stockpile?

Granted, they're only in bankruptcy protection, but unless they can kill CCD/CMOS imaging with a new device of their invention, they've got little chance of coming out.

Re:Kodak vs. stockpile

[wiredlogic]

unless they can kill CCD/CMOS imaging with a new device of their invention

Kodak did much of the early work on using CCDs for imaging so they are their invention in a way. It just never fit into their razor blade business model so they licensed out the relevant patents and sat on their heels while the world passed them by.

Re:Kodak vs. stockpile

[Dogtanian]

Who else has money that Kodak will go under first before they exhaust their stockpile?

Kodak *is* pretty much toast at this point, it's just a question of when. Unfortunately, they've really left it too late for the company to restructure and reorient in the way that the more far-sighted Fujifilm did over a decade ago, and ironically it's only bankruptcy proceedings that have (and will) give them the power to do what needs to be done.

Kodak's problem is that there's no real reason for them to exist in their old form- with many legacy operations, obligations and structures- at this stage, and thus no real reason for anyone to buy them whole. Looked at coldly, potential buyers would probably be more likely to buy them if they were split up along the lines of their operations, e.g. while operations relating to the chemical aspects of traditional photography might have some value elsewhere, they probably make little sense being part of a "photography" company in the digital world. (And, actually Kodak *had* spun off Eastman Chemical in 1994, *before* digital decimated their mass-market film-based business).

Kodak's other major problem is that they're now selling off the things (patents et al) that they really need to survive long-term, simply to survive in the short term.

The best case scenario is that the business will be radically transformed under bankruptcy protection with much of it being sold off and a *much* smaller core company remaining. The worst case scenario is that the company is totally liquidated, its intellectual and physical assets sold off piecemeal in a way that preserves nothing of the original structure and the "Kodak" name is bought up and whored out for use on arbitrary electronic tat.

Believe me, the name *will* survive if nothing else, used to trade off nostalgia and people's ignorance that the "Kodak" product they bought has nothing to do with the original company and was probably just licensed out by a rights holder. But that isn't "survival" in any meaningful sense.

Re:Kodak vs. stockpile

[BrokenHalo]

Unfortunately, they've really left it too late for the company to restructure and reorient in the way that the more far-sighted Fujifilm did over a decade ago

Incidentally, Kodak never really hit my buttons with their colour films to the extent that Agfachrome (RIP 1978) and Fuji did. Agfa was never quite the same after it adopted Kodak's process, but Fuji film (which still seems to be pretty commonly available, at least for now) rocks.

Re:Kodak vs. stockpile

[Mal-2]

Velvia was (and presumably still is) a spectacular film stock for shooting landscapes and general outdoor photography. The blue and green rendition and overall saturation were astounding. Unfortunately, it was a bit TOO saturated and in particular a bit too contrasty to make a good portrait film. It was very hard to beat Kodachrome for this, and (aside from shots taken to finish a roll) that's all I ever used it for.

That's one big advantage to digital -- you can change the response from shot to shot, rather than being stuck shooting an entire roll or trying to do a rewind-and-change job. It doesn't matter that you were shooting ISO 100 outdoors five minutes ago and just walked into a dark building, your "film change" is just a couple button presses or knob twists away.

still produced by a former part of Kodak

[Trepidity]

Interestingly, the former chemicals division of Eastman Kodak, spun off in the 1990s as the Eastman Chemical Company, is still one of the major producers of cellulose acetate. While its usage as a film base usage is declining, its usage for lots of things, ranging from cigarette filters to LCD screens, is increasing.

Re:Thankfully

[Rob the Bold]

Lord knows where they develop the film, though. (Unless setting up your own darkroom is a hipster fad I've overlooked.)

Most surviving photography shops I've been in process 120 film. You can also mail it in, but a lab is probably closer than you think.

Re:Thankfully

[dyingtolive]

Well, doesn't it make sense that, assuming they have a method for developing film, you've never heard of it?

Re:Thankfully

[Sarten-X]

I don't know about it being a hipster fad, but setting up your own darkroom is pretty simple. If you don't want to, there are still a good number of labs out there that will process film. You might have to send your film out somewhere rather than ride your fixed-gear bike down to the local Walgreens, but it can be done.

produce your own?

[John Da' Baddest]

Kodak always was a "scaling" company, not just a niche market thing. WIth the emerging trend towards produce-your-own stuff with 3D printers, can small-scale production of acetates be far behind -- for the few who still want it?

So let me know when you can produce your own 3D molecules small-scale. I have a special order. :-)

Re:Thankfully

[IheatMyAptWithCPUs]

" Thankfully, the company has large stockpiles of the material, and once that runs out they will source it from elsewhere."

Thankfully, in 20 years we'll have rich trust-fund hipster-kids developing on film "before it was cool."

-- Ethanol-fueled

Thankfully, today's economy should result in fewer trust-fund-hipster-douche-bags.

Re:Company stops producing product that nobody wan

[unixisc]

Soon, news at 11 will be replaced by news anytime, if people get all their news online, as opposed to TV

Re:Thankfully

[RDW]

You don't even really need a darkroom, just a light-tight changing bag and a daylight developing tank, $50 for both. Then just scan the negatives...

Re:Thankfully

[Anonymous Coward]

B&W darkrooms are easy to set up, but C-41 process color film or slide film are generally too much for the home hobbyist. Labs are accessible in most large cities but everyone else probably has to mail it in, or have some local reseller mail it for them.

Re:Bothachrome

[Chris Mattern]

Well, just start killing Bothas. I'll tell you when to stop.

Re:Thankfully

[Guido von Guido II]

Lord knows where they develop the film, though. (Unless setting up your own darkroom is a hipster fad I've overlooked.)

You don't need a darkroom to develop film and scan it. You just need a changing bag, which is basically a black bag with arm holes. It's designed to keep the light out while allowing your hands to work with whatever's inside. It takes a little practice, but it's easy enough to wind the film around a reel and put it inside a light-proof canister. From there you just pour in whatever developer you're using through a tiny hole at the top.

What you would need a darkroom for is making prints from your negatives. I have actually never done that.

Building 317

[Anonymous Coward]

I subcontracted in that building in the past. It's like 5 football fields side by side with lots of rollers and extruders. They were crazy about everything being clean, we had to wear tyvek suits and booties. The place smelled like a carpet show room from all of the plastics in use. One of the largest building in Kodak park will go un used and off of the tax bill for the town. I'm not surprised by any of this, one less thing for them to produce. There isn't a market for film since everyone is digital these days. With the exception of wedding photo's I cannot remember a time when I have even printed out pictures.

Re:Building 317

[wiredlogic]

One of the largest building in Kodak park will go un used and off of the tax bill for the town.

I think they have to tear the building down to get tax relief which is part of why other buildings at KP have been taken down in the past few years.

Film

[Anonymous Coward]

Kodak's Portra is an excellent film.

Let me know when I can get a digital camera with the dynamic range of good film in my Pentax 67.

Ever notice on some of the old black and white films how they can capture shadow details in a very dark hallway, as well as the highlights in a full lit room?

Digital tech still can't match that.

Re:Film

[Mal-2]

Digital can get that range with two shots and HDR, so unless you're shooting motion in that low light (such as theater or dance), you can still capture those fine details. Plus you'll be capturing it in color, allowing you to filter it in a variety of ways after the fact that can't be used once the chroma data is gone.

Re:Film

[ledow]

And vinyl sounds better?

Re:Missed headline

[PhotoJim]

Doesn't matter much - Kodak's days in the film business seem numbered.

Thankfully Fujifilm continues to do well, and Ilford is the market leader in black-and-white photography (and even brings out new products occasionally). There are also a few niche B&W fim manufacturers kicking around, like Foma.

Re:Thankfully

[Dogtanian]

B&W darkrooms are easy to set up, but C-41 process color film or slide film are generally too much for the home hobbyist. Labs are accessible in most large cities but everyone else probably has to mail it in, or have some local reseller mail it for them.

The problem with colour film was that it required far more accurate temperature control to get the colour balance et al right.

However, given that the hipsters seem to be intentionally going for wonky, degraded-looking colour (the sort of film-type flaws that processors once tried to avoid like the plague and technologists tried to eliminate), I'd just say "f*** it", start up a hipster-oriented lab and make this some sort of selling point for the people that got into cheap, crappy cameras after a bunch of marketing students licensed the brand and ramped up the price.

Quality control? Not needed... the results of my lousy C41 processing will be "quirky", "charming" and "retro"!

Re:Thankfully

[Trepidity]

The particular form today's economy is taking will probably actually produce more of them. It's mostly the poor and middle classes who are being hit, while the rich are doing very well, perhaps better than ever before. Trust-fund hipster kids come from rich families, not poor or middle-class ones, so this market segment looks bullish. As long as the S&P 500 keeps climbing and bonuses keep coming in, their trust funds will stay bankrolled...

it ain't that hard

[swschrad]

I've done C41 in a bathroom in an average low-rent apartment,no problem. I've set up several tank-based gallon labs for E4 and E6. the only element that is really critical is the color developer, and after that the first developer. everything else can run just fine at room temp, rated temp of 85-105 Fahrenheit, or anything in between.

a temperature/pressure regulated water flow is a must in a larger scale operation. since you can't get one any more from Calumet, get a closeout bath/shower no-scald control. with a good thermometer in the bath, get it to temp and start processing.

on the gallon lines, I used a laundry washtub, PVC pipe for the reels, and an immersion heater on a stick to help pre-heat the bath. at that point, start the water, and go for it.

it is nowhere as hard as you say, unless you are machine processing, and then the temp control will be part of the machine. you can still push-process up to 3 F-stops by fiddling the processor speed.

Kodachrome was a whole 'nother critter, and that's why it's no longer around.

Re:it ain't that hard

[Dogtanian]

it is nowhere as hard as you say

All *I* (as opposed to the GP) actually said was that it required far more accurate temperature control- which *is* true of some stages. And while it's doable as you describe it, you have to admit that it's still more complicated than processing black and white, which is pretty straightforward for the amateur.

Re:Thankfully

[tipo159]

Lord knows where they develop the film, though. (Unless setting up your own darkroom is a hipster fad I've overlooked.)

You don't need a darkroom to develop film and scan it.

What you would need a darkroom for is making prints from your negatives. I have actually never done that.

My darkroom is also called the laundry room. Enlarger and trays fit on top of the washer/dryer and there is a bathroom outside of the room for running water. However, I usually scan my negs anyway.

and polyester

[swschrad]

in either event, if they went hog wild with silicone antistick compound, it dissolves the resin base of the tape mix, and all the intelligence comes off in clumps and gobs when you run it. archivists looking at most of the "high performance" tapes tend to bake 'em a couple hours at 140-160 degrees in an oven to cook out the silicone before they make the transfer playback to new media.

the slime will deteriorate the oxide layer long before an evenly-wound tape pack of either base decomposes under good storage.

old 3M 111 tape and its peers has turned out to be the archival medium. not the fancy stuff. look out for Kodak acetate audiotape, though, that stuff shatters at the first loop-and-snap like the old paper tape did.

Polaroid syndrome

[swschrad]

the last plant in Holland continued to make instant film until the last chemicals ran out. the employees then bought it and re-invested the process with new chemistry.

Re:Thankfully

[Omestes]

Hey, I've got a $10 Holga lens for my mirrorless setup. It was $10 (cheapest lens I own by a large margin), it takes fun pictures at parties, and it was ten dollars. I've been tempted to get a lomo or holga cheap film body for awhile now... Just because it is amusing, and exponentially cheaper than some of the other film cameras I want "for fun" (an old Leica, or Voigtlander Bessa). I say "fun", because I have a full DSLR kit, and a full mirrorless kit, both of these fulfill all my serious and professional needs. Holga and Lomos are for playing around with, and for taking photography back to its simplest principles. They fill the same roll as, and I hate to say this, Instagram.

There are still film labs floating around. Most towns with a college probably have some. Also, and I might be wrong, but I think the Lomography guys will develop film for you. You can ship it out of course, or drop it off at most Costcos or Walgreens. I'm not sure if those last two hold for 120, though.

I actually have a good deal of respect for Lomography, they've been working on keeping film stock alive, which benefits more than just them, or the mythical "hipsters".

Re:Thankfully

[minkie]

I'm sure you can get both for a lot less than $50 on Craig's List, or freecycle. I gave my setup away years ago. I only hope the person I gave it to got some use out of it before dumping it in the trash.

Did Kodak just discontinue slide film?!

[Dogtanian]

Doesn't matter much - Kodak's days in the film business seem numbered.

Is is true that Kodak has stopped making transparency film altogether?

They announced the discontinuation of Ektachrome in particular formats in early 2012, but never actually said "we're stopping making slide film". Yet some people seem to believe that this is effectively what's happened.

Go to their website, visit the "professional films" section (the "consumer" films bit only seems to contain a couple of print films) and click on "color reversal films". There's nothing there but the discontinuation notice.

Many people interpreted a press release from Kodak around a year ago as (effectively) signifiying they were discontinuing slide film (e.g. here). If this is the case, then Kodak managed to slip a *very* significant announcement through as just yet another downsizing of their film line.

So... has Kodak discontinued slide film, and if so, why didn't more people pick up on it?!

Re:Happy Thursday from the Golden Girls!

[DeathElk]

Yeah, those new pink ecstasy tablets are wonderful, aren't they?

Re:Thankfully

[Dishevel]

If you are working with film for a hobby why would you send out for developing.
If all you want do do is take pics then digital is fine.

Re:Thankfully

[jythie]

Eh, 'hipster fad' is just code for 'people doing stuff I do not care about', so if someone likes digital cameras and other people dare to not, well, they must be following a hipster fad otherwise they would do what the speaker is doing.

Personally I have seen quite a bit of interest in film around, some people just happen to really enjoy the process.. and when it comes down to it that is what hobbies are all about, doing what you enjoy. Though I have seen a pretty good economic argument for sticking to film when it comes to medium format stuff. For the price of a digital back you can get a whole lot of film+chemicals and a damn good scanner.

Re:Thankfully

[TapeCutter]

If you stick to B&W you don't even need a red light bulb since the darkroom doesn't have to be pitch black. As long you pre-focus the enlarger on plain paper and keep the print paper covered until using it, something like indirect street/moonlight through a laundry window won't do any noticeable harm, but is just bright enough for (young eyes) to see what their doing. If you use 35mm the only kit you need to make prints is an enlarger. Not sure what they are worth these days but they were cheap enough in the 70's to be within the reach of a paper boy's salary. I started with "126" film, it had larger negatives so you could make wallet sized prints with an ordinary picture frame instead of an enlarger.

Re:Thankfully

[BrokenHalo]

In any case, it isn't that hard to set up your own darkroom. When I was a teenager, I used a bathroom in my parents' house, with the windows blanked out.

The whole process isn't even that expensive, so long as you don't mind improvising a bit for an enlarger. In my case, I had an old 1940s enlarger that was pretty basic, but its imperfections led to some great effects that I wouldn't have got from more sophisticated or modern models.

I rarely made colour negatives, though; if I ever wanted a colour print, I used to use Cibachrome (now Ilfochrome) paper to make prints from colour transparencies. It involved a bit of work, but I don't believe I have ever seen such vibrant, almost luminous colour in a digital print.

Re:Thankfully

[blackest_k]

you don't need a scanner even a digital compact can do a reasonable job. you need a light source your laptop will do a diffuser for the light or you will see pixels from the monitor , bit of negative envelope will do and something to hold it together i used a clip photo frame with a 35mm hole. i placed a 50mm lens over the negative and used a compact digital to take pictures. Then its largely a case of stitching together inverting and white balance which is simple enough in gimp. The resolution isn't bad either easily higher than a fuji frontier mini lab. Which is what got me in to it being rather annoyed at the scan size on the photo CDs that I got.

Its not that they cant do it but it is much much slower going from 800 prints an hour to around 30 ish
now as the machines stand idle most of the time these days you might be able to get a friendly knowledgeable lab tech to up the scan resolution, and why not if there is no back log.

The digital photography method even with a crude setup shows potential to perform to a high standard.

 

Re:Thankfully

[Pax00]

Most of the hipsters I am aware of send off their film to be developed.

I do not fall into that crowed... I have 20+ years in the darkroom and am keeping this part of our scientific/artistic alive.

Most of the hipsters I know have no interest in learning how to process their own film and make their own prints.

I think most of them buy their lomo cameras as a fashion accessory as I never see them actually take pictures with the camera.

Re:Happy Thursday from the Golden Girls!

[n6kuy]

A cosmonaut?
Really, comrade?

Re:Thankfully

[kermidge]

I set up a black and white darkroom in '68, used it sporadically for the few years I lived at that place. While I probably should have spent more time learning by doing and all that, maybe gotten a bit serious about photography, I can't fault the simple learning and fun of it. B&W is simple, easy, and if the whimsy strikes, captivating.

Never got into color, too much expense and relative hassle. Only did it at the labs I worked at.

Re:Thankfully

[Joce640k]

The whole process isn't even that expensive, so long as you don't mind improvising a bit for an enlarger.

...assuming you want them on paper. Why not scan the negatives?

Re:Thankfully

[Hognoxious]

I used to shoot E6 almost exclusively (to the point that I had one of those bulk loader jobbies) and never had any problems home developing it.

As long as the ambient temperature's not too cold a big plastic bowl of water is a good enough buffer.

Re:Thankfully

[Hognoxious]

Just because it is amusing, and exponentially cheaper than some of the other film cameras I want "for fun"

So the Lomo costs L and the Voigtlander costs V, the relationship between them is V = kL^t?

Re:Thankfully

[Rob the Bold]

Choices of transparency film for the 120 format seem to really be dwindling. Mostly a handful of Fujifilm products. Kodak's been out of the slide business for a while.

I shoot a handful of rolls of color/b&w negatives a year. Not enough for me to justify processing and scanning equipment. And i'm not interested in cross-processing, or homebrew chemicals involving instant coffee or aspirin or peanut butter or whatever. (OK. The peanut butter one was a ringer.) I don't think I'm a hipster, I mostly just shoot for nostalgia, and sometimes a few pics of my daughter. I use my Dad's old Vogtlander folder. Since he never got to see his granddaughter. I can kinda imagine this way.

Anyway, maybe I'll try some Velvia this summer, assuming I can get it easily and in single rolls rather than a five-pack.

Sensors are much better at "capturing light"

[caveat]

My midrange-consumer camera (Nikon D5100) makes color images at ISO6400 that are roughly comparable in quality to "consumer" (say Fuji drugstore-brand) color film at ISO200. It captures 5 stops, 2^5 times more, light for the same (or better) overall quality. If by "capture light" you mean dynamic range or tonality or something other than raw ISO sensitivity there's more to discuss.

Re:Sensors are much better at "capturing light"

[AaronLS]

That's nice. I'll have to pay more attention on my next camera. Think my Nikon D60 only goes up to 1200. How is the graininess on that camera? Mine gets really grainy on long exposures if I have ISO above 800. I know that's kind of the holy grail pipe dream of getting high ISO without graininess.

Re:Thankfully

[Hognoxious]

Most Lomography is on colour negative film, since it saves the trouble of having to think about contrast. Or correct exposure, for that matter.

Or anything else, for that matter, apart from posing. I don't mean of the subjects, obviously.

Re:Thankfully

[Hognoxious]

Unless setting up your own darkroom is a hipster fad I've overlooked.

Unlikely, since you can't be seen a darkroom.

Re:Thankfully

[Hognoxious]

... until the revolution comes.

Not likely though, is it? They seem to know how to avoid pushing too far. And if things do boil over, they can always hire half the proles to fight the other half. Carnegie, I think?