Currently, there is still a fairly good range of film on offer, although I find it necessary to use a specialist supplier in order to fulfil all my requirements. If anything, I now tend to experiment much more than I used to so that I can make the most of what looks like the twilight years of film. For many years (and for several reasons) I used the same combination of camera, lens, film and processing laboratory for most of my work and this gave me predictably consistent results. The lab I currently use is the successor of a company I first dealt with when I began shooting serious medium format material in 1979. Now, over 27 years later, the company has gone through at least three changes of name and ownership, but continues to attract my custom, more of which later. So if film is still freely available and can be processed easily, why do I feel less than happy about the medium term future?

Unlikely allies in promoting the digital revolution
Now I'm sure that this view would be roundly denied by the film manufacturers and the processing industry but, in my opinion, they are actually accelerating the demise of film through potentially adverse business decisions or poor attention to detail. My theory is based primarily on personal experience and anecdotal evidence from fellow photographers.

The first example concerns Kodak and the way in which Kodachrome film is processed. Over the years I have shot hundreds of rolls of all three Kodachrome variants. For a long time the exposed films had to be sent to Kodak's facility at Hemel Hempstead for processing. Later, it was a Wimbledon address. Now, UK users have to post the film to Lausanne in Switzerland. In this day and age, mailing articles across continents should be trouble-free, but I remain unhappy with having to mail individual films all the way across Europe, rather than the batches Kodak used to collect in London and then send across to the European mainland for processing. Maybe my perception of the risk involved is a long way from the reality, but the unease persists and I now shoot much less Kodachrome as a result. Kodak's CEO is on record as saying that conventional film will soon be a tiny fraction of the company's business (Financial Times, 26th January 2006), but it would be a shame if an iconic product like Kodachrome was killed off prematurely by its owner while it still has a good following.

Mucky pictures
Returning to my usual film processor, like any long term relationship it has had its ups and downs over the years. During the 1980s and early 1990s I can recall a few occasions when prints were supplied that were faulty, even to a layman's eye, yet they apparently passed a "quality check". Washed out colours with whites that were closer to beige, along with poor contrast, suggested that someone had added a liberal dose of mud to the processing bath. I had a couple of batches reprinted out of principle, but the worst example was when a client in a hurry insisted on taking a batch of enlargements that were clearly sub-standard, much to my embarrassment. I put a lot of time, effort and care into my photography and I expect my processing laboratory to adopt similar standards.

Lacking chemistry?
For many years I used their pro-am processing service for most of my work. Not only was it very good value, but it also tended to be consistently reliable with results that often bettered those of their so-called "professional" products. However, in the Summer of 2003 I sent off four rolls of Superia 200, the first occasion I had ever sent more than two films in one batch and a decision I was to regret. When I opened the pack of prints I knew immediately that something had gone wrong, because I had used this camera/
lens/film/process combination for so long. The prints from all four films lacked contrast and colour saturation and I was puzzled until I checked the negatives against a previous film from the same batch. From this it was obvious that the newer films had been inexplicably under-developed, so I passed this information to the lab and sent samples to back up my case. I was compensated by a full refund, plus free replacement film and processing, which was great. What I never did receive was an explanation as to how an experienced laboratory came to make such an elementary mistake, which to me was equally important. In culinary terms it would be comparable to an experienced chef ruining a basic dish like beans on toast - you simply wouldn't expect it. Fortunately, in photographic terms the effects were mitigated by the fact that I had also been shooting material on Kodachrome and a digital compact. Additionally, I was able to rescue the majority of the affected images, but only at the expense of several hours in Photoshop.

Addled admin and crummy competition
More recently, the processing side has been fine, with only occasional glitches due to basic administrative errors or failure to check that order details have been complied with. Additionally, after a pair of transparency films went missing in the post last year I now request a form of tracked delivery. Unfortunately, this has been missed several times and, despite being charged for the more secure service, the films have been returned by standard post. Out of sheer exasperation I was driven to try a rival processor who offers a very similar range of products, although even this proved to be a disappointment. I now have most films scanned at the time of processing as it saves me the job and my usual lab is fairly reasonable in terms of costs. Their rival charges higher prices for a lower resolution product, almost £10 more for a 36 exposure transparency film. Additionally, the rival company claims to have a fully automated production area with air filtration systems in place. I have to dispute the latter, because when I scanned two recent 35mm transparency films they looked as though they had been dried and cut up in a coal shed. Every single frame had dirt and dust present, dried onto the film. So one laboratory has good products but occasionally wayward administration, while the other has slick admin, but slightly inferior products that generally cost more. You may not be surprised to learn that I have therefore reverted to my usual lab on the basis of "better the devil you know"...

And there's more
Having tried out some Fuji Sensia transparency film during 2005 which was process-paid, I found out that Fuji's official processing facility in the UK is run by a concessionaire and offers other process and print services. In view of the problems I had experienced with my usual lab I decided to place some trial orders with the Fuji facility on the assumption that it would be better. I was wrong. One roll of 120 Provia took around three weeks due, I was informed, to the fact that roll film is hand-processed in batches. Additionally, a straightforward D & P job on a roll of Superia produced some rather insipid results and an order for fresh Provia resulted in several films being supplied that were three months out of date. The latter were replaced without fuss, although I was inconvenienced by having to return the out of date stock. The main point I am making is that yet another laboratory failed to live up to reasonable expectations, but this time representing one of the remaining major film manufacturers.

The digital contrast
The net result of all this is that I sometimes wonder why I bother staying with film, given the number of variables I cannot control and which simply add unnecessary stress to the creative process. Contrast this with a digital shoot. I can review each frame immediately after shooting, then have the images downloaded and catalogued within hours, often with time afterwards for some experimental edits. Total control over quality and timings and at a price per image that is considerably cheaper than film, even taking into account the cost of a pro-quality digital SLR. But I know why I subject myself to the vagaries of processing labs and the postal system. Some of my film cameras are like old friends and they simply don't have a digital equivalent. They continue to deliver good results and I really enjoy working with them. And, despite all my grumbling, the air of anticipation when sending a film off to the lab does still provide a modicum of pleasure. Add to that the simple fact that using different types of film for specific shoots is in itself part of the creative process and can deliver results which make it all worthwhile.

Keeping the faith
In the end I therefore return to my starting point. Despite all my complaints about shoddy standards by processing laboratories I shall continue to use film for as long as possible. It is not difficult to foresee that the choice of film stock will diminish in time, especially now that many professional photographers are using high resolution digital equipment. Ulitmately, I think it will be the professional and serious amateur market that will be the last bastion of film. Chances are that I'll be one of those who'll be there at the last, but as to when that will be, we can only guess.