lf-photo.org.uk

Not wanting to start any more scaremongering threads but....

I bought the first issue of the new monthly format BJP today and had a quick skim through ( really liking the format ). There is a story in there about E6 processing coming to and end, and interviewing several labs which process E6, or have in the past. Several labs have stopped, and the consensus seemed to be that E6 processing has taken a massive nosedive since the beginning of 2009 ( well didn't everything? but still... ) and one lab predicted E6 had only "months" to live rather than years.

Curiously I've noticed over the last week or two the price of Jobo CPE-2 units on Ebay has shot up. Coincidence? Now we could attribute this to Tim Parkin's videos ( and therefore Richard Childs by proxy ) but I doubt they're entirely to blame I bought a bath unit and several drums and other paraphenalia for £64 ( but no bottles ) the week before last, this week, well specced CPE-2 systems have been going for in excess of £200 and one with lift and large format drums went for over £400.

It's not just the availability of film which is key to our mutual interest, but also the availability of processing services/chemicals. I've set up a poll to see what the ratios are between self processing and lab processing, I think it will be interesting to see who does what, and as you can change your vote, we might see it change over time.

So are we just talking E6, or C41 and B&W too?

The article was only referring to E6, but the poll should be any processing, E6, C41 & Mono.

If for example it's split, you do B&W processing at home but send out the E6, that's what the third option is for.

DJ wrote:Not wanting to start any more scaremongering threads but....

... and one lab predicted E6 had only "months" to live rather than years. ...

I'd like to know what lab that is and have a word with them. If E6 is finished in about 2 months time then we have a situations where a multimillion turnover film industry has no way of developing it's product... wow!?

Actually - this same rumour was going around 5 years ago

http://www.flickr.com/groups/93948422@N ... ss/133988/

timparkin wrote: I'd like to know what lab that is and have a word with them. If E6 is finished in about 2 months time then we have a situations where a multimillion turnover film industry has no way of developing it's product... wow!?

The lab in question was Rapid Eye. I think the prediction was for the end of the year, "months, not years", and those interviewed were speculating on a viability of running the service as opposed to the availability of chemicals, but surely one will follow the other. The article isn't just scaremongering, they do speak to both labs who've dropped E6 and those who are committed to it, so it's fairly balanced and was an interesting read.

You should pick up the new BJP, it's a bold move for a magazine, no other mag out there quite like this, I rather like it and I'm enjoying reading it, hope they're successful with it.

If Kodachrome processing is only just winding up then I can't see E6 going west any time soon, its just too much of an established market compared to Kodakchrome by a huge factor.

As for the supply of chemicals, I would have thought thats a pretty safe one. They're only chemicals afterall - as far as I know no elements on the periodic table have been discontinued in the last 13 billion years.

dave_whatever wrote:If Kodachrome processing is only just winding up then I can't see E6 going west any time soon, its just too much of an established market compared to Kodakchrome by a huge factor.

As for the supply of chemicals, I would have thought thats a pretty safe one. They're only chemicals afterall - as far as I know no elements on the periodic table have been discontinued in the last 13 billion years.

Fujivelvium 54 seems to have a low half life from what I've heard though...

In the recent Kodak Ektar announcement for LF didnt they mention that one of the reasons was the impending demise of E6 processing ? They say that C41 will live for much longer. Maybe I imagined it...

davejt3 wrote:In the recent Kodak Ektar announcement for LF didnt they mention that one of the reasons was the impending demise of E6 processing ? They say that C41 will live for much longer. Maybe I imagined it...

You evil man

Actually you didn't totally imagine it.. From the Kodak Ektar FAQ

It sounds like EKTAR 100 Film might be an alternative to high color reversal films?
Exactly. And that’s important as E-6 processing becomes less readily available.

The other thing that has to be recognised with this is the old adage of use it or lose it is very pertinent. I dont know what the actual numbers are but in a fragile economic model the last thing that is needed is the serious amateur rainmakers and users moving to home processing..... If the last 6 mths has lost 10% of the usage in E6 labs spread across the few we know well then this is enough to kill the economics. Economically home processing is a wash once amortising the equipment is taken into account and time wise it is consuming if you come home from a trip with 50 or 60 sheets to process so..... take the profit on these jobo thingies while the market is hot and send everything to one or 2 good labs on the proceeds to make sure they survive

Has anyone got a handle on numbers of E6 sheet film processed in the UK ? I would be surprised if it was anymore than 20k per annum.

davejt3 wrote:The other thing that has to be recognised with this is the old adage of use it or lose it is very pertinent. I dont know what the actual numbers are but in a fragile economic model the last thing that is needed is the serious amateur rainmakers and users moving to home processing.....

I still think that home E6 is still very much a minority sport, and will account for a tiny percentage of overall E6 users. I know if I wasn't using 4x5 i'd not even consider it, and that would be the case for virtually all 135 and 120 shooters. Basically at the market rate of £2-2.50 a sheet for 4x5 I can't afford to be shooting any volume at all and having it commerically done in the longterm. It's either do it myself or stick to using 120 in a 6x7 back.

davejt3 wrote: Economically home processing is a wash once amortising the equipment is taken into account and time wise it is consuming if you come home from a trip with 50 or 60 sheets to process so.....

Even with what I paid for my E6 gear I still expect to break even in 9months ish, or a year at worse. If I did ever come home with 60 sheets to process (unlikely) I would probably still send some of them to a lab. At this stage I'd just be happy to have some good weather and light evenings to be actually able to shoot some film at all .

davejt3 wrote:The other thing that has to be recognised with this is the old adage of use it or lose it is very pertinent. I dont know what the actual numbers are but in a fragile economic model the last thing that is needed is the serious amateur rainmakers and users moving to home processing.....

You can bet the film companies would make more money selling us the chemicals than selling the labs the chemicals.. So by the same logic, if we want to ensure the continuance of E6 production we should move to an economic model that is of the greatests benefit to the film companies.

Everyone should develop their own film!!

Tim

Well yeah, and they should sell us nice cheap (but great) processors and make the money on the film and chemicals.

I'd be interested to see if with the consolidation of E6 labs there will emerge anyone specialising specifically in sheet film for the LF market. One of the things that strikes you when looking at the prices of Peak etc is the disparity between 135/120 prices and sheet film. Say a roll of 120 costs £3.75 and a sheet of 4x5 costs £2.50. In terms of film area (thus chemicals used) per unit pound its not far off three times more expensive to shoot 4x5 as 120. I imagine the markup is to cover the extra handling that the lab has to do compared to dropping a roll of film into the machine. Essentially you pay more because you're causing them an inconvenience.

However I do wonder if a place specialising in sheetfilm could run a more streamlined service and be able to introduce efficiencies reduce that markup somewhat. Even if they insisted customers supply sheets in a certain way, some kind of consistent box loading protocol (i.e. individually enveloped or something like that) a lab might be able to get the price per sheet down to a quid a throw. And a lab that could do that and maintain decent quality an concsistency would make a killing. I'm just theoreticising here.

I feel that report of the news item in the BJP is a little disingenous. The news item, on page 16, says that whilst there are labs that no longer offer E6 processing, other firms, whilst seeing a decline in processing, recognise the need for some users to remain with transparency film, such as museums and art photographers (see: Genesis Digital). At the end of the day, so long as sufficient demand remains, E6 processing will be available, albeit the costs may rise as it become more of a niche market. Whilst Rapid Eye's Eddy Cater makes the claim that he believes E6 will cease by the end of 2010, this is simply hyperbole. This is reiterated by the positive E6 processing comments of both Chris Jackson, director of Metro Imaging, and Genesis Digital's Melinda Gibson. So long as the film is made and the processing chemicals are still available, E6 looks likely to continue into the forseeable future.