As we receive a great many questions about roll film, I wanted to briefly ‘discuss’ the whole topic here in order to answer as many questions as possible in a prominent, pinned post.
First of all, I’d like us to be aware that many customers own both a 35mm camera and a roll film camera, and would like to use the same film in both. For some, this is even a deal-breaker when it comes to switching brands at all. That is why we are doing everything in our power to be able to offer roll film again.
I think everyone has been able to follow this far and there are no questions. However, things get significantly more complicated when it comes to the question of why this issue has been pending for years.
In this regard, I would first like to refer to
the short speech
I gave
at the Filmphotofair in Helsinki
in 2019.
The aim there was to highlight that virtually the entire analogue photography industry still relies on production equipment that was manufactured or purchased at a time when the market was approximately 1,000 times larger.
I also pointed out that – despite this fact – the price of black-and-white film, adjusted for today’s purchasing power, is actually cheaper than it was in 1988. This is because all the manufacturers involved have excess capacity, resulting in high competitive pressure across the entire industry.
To put it another way: today’s price level for black-and-white materials is unrealistically low and can only be this low because manufacturers are still operating on a break-even basis where the product price does not include the following components:
- Product development costs
- Machinery development costs
- Staff training (which should actually be the top priority in terms of costs)
- The implementation of processes
- Building construction costs for all specialised installations such as darkroom facilities, ventilation, chemical handling, waste treatment and much more.
Currently, the prices merely include:
- Raw materials
- Energy costs
- Variable labour costs based on trained staff
- Rent for existing buildings
This is, of course, somewhat simplified.
This results in the advantage of the very low market price mentioned above (in fact, even cheaper than at the time when all these investments were made) and, as a disadvantage, a technically outdated, energy-intensive workforce that is also ageing.
A good example to support my argument is colour film. Here, the revival has led to an increase in demand following decades of capacity consolidation on the supply side.
This has led to rising prices. Colour film has now risen far too sharply. The price is a clear indicator of scarcity and, at current levels, has nothing to do with the reality of costs for some films (e.g. colour slides). Nevertheless, it will continue to rise unless additional supply-side capacity is created. The fact that this is not happening – even though all the above-mentioned costs would now be factored into the price – is due to the complexity of the undertaking.
At this point, I am usually asked:
“Well, what is so complicated about it?”.
Unfortunately
,
the answer (contrary to the questioner’s expectations) is:
“Everything. From start to finish.”
Due to the ageing of the factories, but above all due to the lack of training structures, production could not be ramped up again, even among those who possess all the necessary know-how.
Let us now take roll film as an example.
We will deliberately leave out the even more difficult areas of emulsion production and coating for the moment.
Roll film is, however, a good example, as the labour-intensive packaging (now known as finishing) is often the notorious ‘bottleneck’.
At Kodak, the situation seems to be the opposite of ours, for although there is a shortage of gold 35mm film, a gold roll film is being launched onto the market. This is to be welcomed; let no one misunderstand me here. You do what you have the capacity for.
We do no different.
Our roll film machines are from Konica-Mitsubishi and were built in 1978.
Photography was exclusively analogue at that time, and there was a functioning industry centred around the actual film manufacturers. Through a division of labour, everyone focused on their specific area of expertise, enabling them to offer components efficiently. Film manufacturers designed emulsions and produced film stock, whilst machine manufacturers supplied film winding machines, casting machines and so on.
It was possible to engineer complex machines, produce prototypes, implement mass production and sell large numbers of machines. Development costs were shared out, with each machine contributing a small part.
Everyone benefited from this, especially the customer, as competition arose among the manufacturers. If film prices rose, a new competitor would emerge with a low-cost entry-level offer. And they could do so because they only needed financing and could buy the necessary machines. They were delivered within six months.
If an investor were to come along today and offer all the money in the world to start producing roll film again, I wouldn’t want to accept it, because I wouldn’t be able to buy a machine whose price, relative to its productivity, is set in such a way that I could recoup its investment costs by operating it.
The development costs for a machine of which only one unit is built are simply too high.
There are two alternatives:
1) Carry on with the old machines (like everyone else)
2) Re-engineer the old machines
We are currently pursuing option 1. The chances of getting the old Hitachi up and running again are moderate, and the certainty that it will then run for more than three weeks is also moderate.
Option 2 is already very costly and unfortunately often leads to a situation where, despite substantial investment, you are left with a machine that neither meets today’s market requirements nor possesses the necessary high level of automation, which is simply indispensable given today’s labour costs in order to operate economically as a human-machine production pool.
