Slashdot Mirror
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."
...when the last commercial film runs out, we'll be coating glass plates with home-mixed emulsions!
But no film.
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.)
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.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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.
" 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.
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.
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)
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.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
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.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.