Physicality and Permanence of Photography

I don't own a darkroom. I do, however, have the tools to develop film up to 4x5. I also have the means to make a room light tight. This week I experimented, not for the first time, with making contact prints. 

This is where you place a negative on top, and in direct contact, of a piece of photographic paper. Expose this sandwich to light and then develop the photo paper to form a finished positive image.

4x5 negatives are a perfect size for contact prints, neither to large or too small. In the early days of photography, contact printing was the only way of making a photograph that you could hold.

I have to say that every time I make a contact print and hold the finished dry photo, there is something about having a physical object that is wonderful.  More to the point there will have been no jiggery pokery because the negative has simply been placed on the photopaper.  A contact print is a thing of beauty and something that I really would like to get better at.

One thing that I have never done is made a contact print of a glass plate negative on another glass plate. So I had a go and OMG! (to quote the young uns). A positive on glass is amazing and timeless.  Something that will be treasured. 

In a world that is disposable, a glass plate contact print feels permanent.

While I have no issues with digital cameras, the lack of physicality of digital photographs somehow undermines their perceived value. A digital photo will languish unloved as zeros and ones on a hard disk until the tech fails and then it is like it never existed. Even peoples memory of taking the digital image fades quickly in the blur of taking a thousand photos on a day trip.

I love using my handheld 4x5 Chroma camera Snapshot. Each photo is an event that is memorable and a contact print unique.

Repackaged and Rebranded films Pt 2

Yesterday I wrote an opinion piece about how repackaged and rebranded films help film manufacturers sell already produced film. Here is part 2 of that.

I have had a few comments discussing this and it seems that the whole situation is more complex than what I was trying to get across yesterday.

Here are some reasons why film repackagers might choose a film for rebranding and repackaging.

1)  The use case for the film has ended and there is no longer have a market for the film, already manufactured and in cold storage. e.g Aerial Reconnaissance film. In this case you might be able to buy the film at low cost and there might be enough stock for say 5 years retail supply. when it's gone, it's gone.  Kodak Aerochrome is a great example. No use case and materials not available or environmentally unsound. The repackagers who got it knew it was limited supply.

2)  A company decide to take advantage of a film produced for a different purpose, e.g. Movie film. This is obvious that there is a stick of film that is normally not used for stills photography, but is used in the Movie industry to produce feature films.  If you want your photos to look like stills from a movie this might be an attractive option. Did you know that 5 studios; Disney, NBCUniversal, Paramount, Sony and Warner Bros all signed a deal with Kodak to continue to shoot movies on 35mm film.  This means that Kodak can invest in movie film production and continue to produce Double-X, Vision 50, 250 and 500 in daylight and tungsten variants. Still photographers now have a guaranteed source of B&W and colour films to use going into the future.

3) A film manufacturer may have a small quantity of stock but not enough for worldwide distribution. Think Film Washi in Brittany.  Low scale, handcrafted production and distribution. When it's gone it's gone.

4) The government of any country might have asked for a film to be developed for a specific application for their emergency services, military or security services. While the manufacturer is under Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) they may not be able to sell the film commercially. However if at no time do they reveal the origin of the emulsion, it may be possible to sell commercially under a different brand. Sometimes there is no NDA or the NDA has expired in which case you'll find out it's origin.

5) The film manufacturer may not want their name associated with an artisan brand for commercial reasons.  At the moment Kodak Gold colour film is (checking Analogue Wonderland) 7.00 GBP per 36 exposure roll.  Kodak may (stressing I have no evidence to back this up, aside from anecdotal) have sold Kodak Gold to  Lomography under the commercial agreement that the source isn't revealed (Commercial NDA) and Lomography don't attempt to undercut Kodak.  So Lomography Colour Negative 100  and Colour negative 400 (the speed change obfuscates the origin and doesn't really matter due to exposure latitude) is sold at 9.50 GBP per roll and Lomography state manufactured in the EU. This may account for why repackaged films are often more expensive than the branded offering.

6) A film manufacturer may not have the advertising budget to promote their films.  Foma films are a great example of this.  Their film maybe the most repackaged film manufactured today. Foma have the coating machinery and the finishing (confection) machinery but their advertising reach is very small scale and limited.  However if a bunch of Artisan film brands sell under their own branding, Foma can sell more film and have a greater reach.

7) A premium film manufacturer may feel that budget brands are gaining traction and they would like to launch their own budget brand. Harman technology did this with Kentmere. The emulsion is good but budget and the packaging is cheaper.  So they can now invent a story about how they took over this old traditional family film and paper company. Harman obfuscated the origins of Kentmere films, the original Kentmere company only produced photographic paper. The truth is that Harman only wanted the brand name for a budget range of film and paper to combat the rise of repackaged films. I'm not saying that Harman are rotters because the film industry is expensive to be in and Harman are ensuring their future.  Agfa APX 100 is rebranded Kentmere 100, according to sources.

Like I said it's a complex situation.

Repackaged Films

 Film photography is, for me, a wonderful thing.  I can expose my film using a manual camera, take my exposed film home and choose from a plethora of developers and development techniques to produce photographs.  Am I being deliberately bloody minded, clinging to out dated technology and the "old ways"?  

By way of disclosure I suffer from depression and anxiety.  I'm probably undiagnosed Autistic as well.

Depression and Anxiety may be characterized as cyclical thoughts that focus on the negative aspects of life rather than seeing the good aspects. 

However suffering is the correct term and one of the tools that the clever people say is useful is to relieve depression is mindfulness.  This works because if you are engaged in an activity that doesn't allow you to think about anything else, for example using a view camera to take a 4x5 picture, you won't have time to mither (northern for worry) over negative aspects of life.  Riding a motorcycle also does the same.  Driving a car does not because we are able to drive mostly on autopilot and know that we'll be safe.  If you come to grief on a bike, there is no safety net.

Therefore, for me and I can only speak about myself, using film cameras and film photography consumes my time and thoughts in a way that few other activities will.

To have a future for film photography requires film being manufactured and sold. Now film production is a very expensive activity.  You need to develop your light sensitive coating, choose your backing film, buy a machine to put those two things together.  You take your coated film and then you have to produce 35mm or 120 or 4x5. Then you have to package, transport, promote. It is an expensive and time consuming activity.

So is it really realistic for anyone who would like to support film photography to setup a film plant and start producing their own film? Not really.  Even companies like Lomography or AgfaPhoto,  don't have their own bespoke coatings, they use what is already available. It's rebranded and repackaged.

The good thing is that the original manufacturer sells more film. Foma films in Bohemia grew their film business by 45% last year, largely due to repackaged Foma films.  This means that Foma can afford to start thinking about new machinery and investing in the plant.

The whole rebranding and repacking thing allows those whose business is the manufacture of film to continue to do that and reinvest in their factories and techniques. It makes the endeavor more economically viable rather than less. I suspect that to manufacture film your machines can produce film faster than consumers buy it and so manufacturers build up a stock that needs confectioning and selling before it goes out of date. Rebranding and repackaging will help sell that film stock. This reduces waste for the manufacturer.

The following are rebranded and repackaged films

Kosmo foto mono

Lomography Lady Grey

Lomography Earl Grey

New Classic EZ400

Cinestill 50D

Cinestill 250D

Cinestill BWXX

Street Candy ATM 400

Rollei RPX 100

Agfa APX 100

FPP Eastman Double-X

This list is by no means definitive, there are lots more I could add.

Anyway the point being that repackaging and rebranding is keeping film photography alive.

So please don't disregard repackaged and rebranded films, they may be our future and a way to keep me sane.