Robert Lewis

As you say, post acquisition disposals are not uncommon, but they usually take place as a going concern, that is to say before, rather than after, the service to be disposed of is closed down. Deluxe seem to have just closed down their 16mm service rather than dispose of it. Is there anything to sell now, other than perhaps the equipment they used?

The fact of the matter is that the only information which Deluxe have published by way of explanation of their decision to end 16mm printing is that printing 16mm does not fit in with their global approach. I do not know whether 16mm printing is "economically viable" whatever that term might mean and, frankly, unless you know something about Deluxe's business which the rest of us do not, I suspect you do not "know" either. If 16mm printing was loss making, one might have expected Deluxe to say so, and had they done so whilst one might have questioned whether there was an alternative to ending the service, there would have been an understanding of what was driving the decision. They could, for example, have reviewed their charges or have provided the 16mm printing service on fewer days each week in order to make it more viable. You are, of course, correct when you say they were under no obligation to give reasons for their decision, but as it happens, they have felt it appropriate to offer an explanation, and "economic viability" of the service does not appear to be a consideration they have made mention of.

The point is you are not Deluxe, and all Deluxe have said to justify their decision is that 16mm printing does not fit their corporate policies. That, with respect, says nothing of the nature of a business case for the decision they have made. It certainly does not support your view that "to maintain this service is probably cost prohibitive" or that 16mm printing is now a "very nice niche in London", as you put it. Presumably had Deluxe been influenced by either of these points, or indeed any others, they would have said so having regard to the amount of criticism they have earned for themselves.

I prefer to project my films and all of my colour negative film (16mm) was processed and printed by Soho until they decided to take no further orders for the printing of 16mm film. I think I can claim therefore to be one who is troubled by the decision to cease 16mm printing. I always found them extremely friendly people at Soho, and the indications are that they feel as badly about the instructions they received from their new owners as we, their customers, were. That having been said, although I have followed this matter quite closely, I have to say that the only reason I have seen for ceasing 16mm printing is that it does not fit with the corporate policies of Deluxe. I have not seen anything of a business case which supports the proposition that that the service should cease. They have not published any information as to the number of customers they had for the work; or details of proportion of available time taken up by customers; or of movements in demand; or of losses incurred in providing the service; or anything of the nature of a cost benefit analysis, and I am intrigued by the thought that what you say is anything but speculation on your part. I too am sorry to be harsh, but perhaps you can support what you say is "common sense" with some factual information.

Over 5000 signatures on the petition now...who would have thought it? Perhaps 16mm is signifcant after all...

If both Film & Photo and Prestech, or either of them, are able to absorb the work abandoned by Deluxe Soho, this is indeed good news. All other things considered, I suspect a good number will be relieved if they are able to continue to get their work done. Is it known whether the capacity is there?

Karl (I hope you do not mind me addressing you by your Christian name), I set out below the heading of the petition: "Soho Film Lab is the last commercial lab to print 16mm film in the UK. It has recently been taken over by the US Company Deluxe, who have decided, as part of their worldwide policy, that 16mm is no longer a commercial priority and therefore to stop printing it with immediate effect. Soho Film Lab, now named Deluxe Soho, has been told to take no new orders. This is devastating news for many artists and filmmakers who continue to work with 16mm print, and to the museums, distributors and institutions fighting to preserve and raise the already fragile visibility of the most significant art form of the 20th century. 16mm continues to be an important medium for artists and filmmakers in the UK and worldwide and is frequently on show in major museums, galleries and festivals here and abroad. Works on film are also an important part of many international collections. There has also been a huge revival of interest in 16mm within the visual arts in the last 10 years by a new generation of artists and this renewed use of 16mm continues to expand significantly. There is a constant demand for 16mm prints in Soho Film Lab. Contrary to what is imagined, 16mm print is still a small but viable market. There is a cultural separation between art and the cinema industry that runs the labs. Cinema sees only digital as the future, but within art, both are important. The complete disappearance of 16mm print production facilities in the UK represents a scandalous cultural loss both in the UK and abroad.". I do not wish to get diverted into a discussion based on a perception of the British film world, but that apart you seem to imply that you have knowledge of a "business case" which Deluxe have had regard to. As far as I know, and this appears to be supported by the information contained in the petition, Deluxe have not claimed that the 16mm print element of the former Soho Images Lab was unprofitable. Rather it seems to be a decision which has been taken because they do not see 16mm printing as fitting within their corporate profile. As I have said in an earlier posting, I am a mere amateur. However all of my colour printing has been done by Soho, and there was no consultation with customers and no explanation has been given by Deluxe as to why they have taken the decision they have. The technical attributes of film as opposed to digital imagery is a most subjective issue, and we do not need to get involved in a debate on that issue now. What this is all about is a Company taking over a Lab and then for no reason they care to explain, they instruct their subordinates to take no more orders for 16mm printing and, as a consequence, deprive the customer base they acquired when they completed the "take-over" of a service those customers were dependent upon. You say "This is about color film, and no one using it to make 16mm prints.". Perhaps you could explain the depth of the knowledge you have as to the financial justification for the decision Deluxe have taken in relation to the 16mm print service in London, or of any cost benefit analysis they undertook before making their decision to end the print service. Better still, if you wish to see 16mm film printing continue, why not sign the petition?

Details of the on-line petition to Deluxe Soho can be found here: http://www.gopetition.com/petition/43288/signatures.html. Please support the petition and help to get Deluxe Soho to reverse their decision.

The service which has been discontinued is the printing of 16mm film. The processing of 16mm film as negative film and digitising services are continuing, as I understand it. So, anybody who projects film is not now able to get projection prints, including work prints, from Deluxe Soho and they will have to look elsewhere. Elsewhere for colour film, it appears, is abroad. For 16mm B&W processing and printing we still have no.w.here in London, and we need to try to ensure that they continue and if possible expand. I suppose anybody requiring 16mm negative colour film processed and a workprint provided could still have their negative film processed as a negative at Deluxe Soho, and then send the negative abroad to have a workprint produced, but it doesn't make much sense to to do this because it will probably be faster to have all of the work done at one lab abroad. Furthermore, it increases the risk of loss in transit, reflecting the two stages. Because I project my films, the service now provided by Deluxe Soho is of no use to me and I am sad about this because Soho provided a good service. I would much rather have been able to continue my business relationship with them. I always found the people at Soho to be friendly and efficient, and their standards were excellent.

Brian ... What you have heard is correct. Deluxe Soho have also updated the old Soho web page and this now omits all refrence to 16mm printing. All of my 16mm filming is processed for projection and much of it is in B&W. Soho did my colour printing. They processed my exposed negative film and printed a one light workprint. I was always delighted with the results. I also film in B&W and I believe that this has a quality which is often overlooked. It certainly has a place in this colour conscious world we seem to focus on today. I shoot B&W using Kodak 7222 and no.w.here, a non for profit lab in Bethnal Green Road, London, process it for me. They will develop B&W Kodak 7222 as a negative and, I believe, will digitise it. They will also produce a positive for projection, and that what they do for me. Their services are open to anybody, and their charges are very reasonable. They will also supply B&W filmstock. Membership brings added opportunities as well as reduced costs. They are a very friendly group of people, and I would strongly say to anybody who wants B&W 16mm processing that they should contact no.w.here and explore the mutual benefits which using them can deliver. We as cinematographers should support no.w.here so that this resource which is available to us now continues to be available. Take a look at their web site. You will see that, as I say, they are a "not for profit" organsation which provides excellent and broadly based opportunities (including training) for those interested in the world of cinematography. It appears that Mike Sperlinger at lux(dot)org(dot)uk is co-ordinating arrangements for a meeting of interested parties affected by the decision of Deluxe, as the new owners of Soho, to discuss the decision to stop printing 16mm film at Deluxe Soho, and initially it seems there is to be an on-line petition calling on Delux to reverse their decision. Certainly, Deluxe's decision is quite dreadful for cinematographers who prefer to project film since the loss of 16mm printing by Soho means there is now no lab in the UK which will print 16mm colour film. It never ceases to amaze me when a company chooses to take over another company which is providing a service and the first thing they do is to cease providing the service they have taken over. One might just wonder why they took over a company which offers a print service only to close down the print service. I guess the answer is that they saw an advantage in taking over only certain of Soho's services, but had to take over the lot on the basis that they could drop those services they were not interested in. So much for the ethics of big business! It is clear that they do not understand that loyalty is something which flows in both directions. This might make some sense to Deluxe, but it represents an absolute failure of service to those cinematographers who have come to rely on the print service provided by Soho. We should all do our best to support no.w.here in the future to try to ensure that it survives the present cuts in public funding, and it is to be hoped that there will be lots of support for the on-line petition to Deluxe Soho in an endeavour to get them to think again. Mike Sperlinger (mike@lux(dot)org(dot)uk) will provide details of the online petition and other action to anybody who is supportive.

no.w.here (www.no.w.here.org.uk) (no.w.here First Floor, 316-318 Bethnal Green Road London E2 OAG UK Telephone: +44 (0)207 7294494) is a not for profit organisation which caters for artists and cinematographers. They will process B&W 16mm film and produce a light print at a cost of £30 for a 100ft roll. They do my B&W processing and I recommend them most enthusiastically. They are a fantastic group of people and I am sure you would find them most helpful.

Do we really need to chew this over again? Almost certainly all the same old arguments will appear yet again and little, if anything, will be said that is new. We could just settle for the fact that some prefer film and some prefer digital for whatever reason.

Further to my posting yesterday, we have some great and encouraging news in the UK... After several attempts to get Kodak to make 16mm Ektachrome 100D available in 100ft rolls in the UK, I have today been advised that it can now be ordered directly from Kodak. It seems that initially it will be brought in from France in minimum quantities of two, but making it available to retailers in the UK for stocking is under consideration. The stock has, of course, been available directly and through retailers in 400ft rolls, but anybody requiring it in 100ft lengths have had to purchase it from places such as Germany or the USA, incurring the associated shipping costs and, if purchased in the USA, duty and VAT which was levied not only on purchase price but also on shipping costs. I suspect that I will not be the only one delighted to learn of this development, and having been critical of Kodak for making life difficult for UK 16mm cinematographers by not being prepared to make 100ft rolls available here until now, I say thank you to Kodak for further extending the range of filmstocks available to us.

After several attempts to get Kodak to make 16mm Ektachrome 100D available in 100ft rolls in the UK, I have been advised that it can now be ordered directly from Kodak. It seems that initially it will be brought in from France in minimum quantities of two, but making it available to retailers in the UK for stocking is under consideration. The stock has, of course, been available directly and through retailers in 400ft rolls, but anybody requiring it in 100ft lengths have had to purchase it from places such as Germany or the USA, incurring the associated shipping costs and, if purchased in the USA, duty and VAT which was levied not only on purchase price but also on shipping costs. I suspect that I will not be the only one delighted to learn of this development, and having been critical of Kodak for making life difficult for UK 16mm cinematographers by not being prepared to make 100ft rolls available here until now, I say thank you to Kodak for further extending the range of filmstocks available to us.

I would not go quite that far John, but I do find Fuji a much more friendly and customer focussed company. Their 16mm stocks are beautiful and whilst they do not do a reversal stock, projection prints I get are excellent. I do wish they did a B & W stock, however. I find B & W can be particularly nice and so I use Kodak's 7222 when I want to film in B & W. Kodak's Ektachrome 100D is a lovely stock too, but for reasons which they will not explain, they will not make it available in the UK in 100ft rolls. Strange this, since I understand it is available in France and Germany. This illustrates their lack of customer focus. They produce a good product but they will not sell it. One cannot help but wonder what sort of future that approach will generate? (An earlier attempt to generate this response failed)

I accept what you say Chris. It is just that the camera I use with the lens in question has a behind the lens exposure meter (Bolex EL), and my other lens is a Kern Vario-Switar POE (which I use on my Bolex SBM) has a built in exposure meter. Generally therefore, in my particular situation, as I read things, both set-ups take light loss in account. That having been said, I appreciate your help and now realise that on those occasions I use a hand held exposure meter, the light loss needs to be taken into account and using the T-stop scale in those cases where the lens is marked with it is the appropriate way to do so. Many thanks.

Thanks Chaps. As I see it, T-stops are not marked on the aperture ring. Instead, what is shown is a reference point on the barrel which indicates at all times the difference between any selected F-stop and the "related" T-stop. That being the case, and since I work in F-stops, I can ignore the mark. I like it when an "issue" turns into a "no issue".

Apologies picture attachment didn't link to the above message.

Chris. Thank you for your response. I am attaching a picture of the relevant part of the lens. Apologies for the quality, but I think you can see that on the barrel of the lens there are two line markings. The white one lines up with the f22 white line marking on the aperture ring. Just below the aperture ring white marking there is a red line marking. It is the purpose of that line marking I am puzzled about. As you can see there are only f.stop markings on the aperture ring, but the red marking on the barrel must have a purpose. The question is what is it? Any information is welcome.

I would like to get hold of a copy of the Manual for the Kern Vario-Switar 12.5-100 MC Zoom Lens (the later of the two types which did not have the automatic exposure system included. Does anybody have a copy scanned which they could let me have. There is nothing very complicated about the lens, but on the aperture ring there are both red and white setting lines, which I suspect are related to the fact that the lens has a macro setting. I think it is possible that one line is for use when the macro setting is not in use and the other is for when it is, and I would like to be sure about this. Any advice would be welcome.

The last thing I would do is to claim to be an expert. There are some experts around, of course, and I hope that Jean-Louis will respond to your request for advice on the particular point you are now concerned about. On a more general front, of course, you should not be getting the "dry turning and scraping" sound you describe, and it just might be that the camera requires cleaning and lubricating. Certainly this is possible if not probable if the camera has been kept for some years as a display item and not a running camera. You mention that you think that the camera has been opened up. This, of course, is also possible, and if it has it raises the question as to why that should have been done. Also, if it has been opened up, the light seal will have been disturbed and you will need to be sure that the light seal has been retained. Frankly, I think the time has come when you need some specialist advice, and whilst Jean-Louis will undoubtedly know what he is talking about, it may be that after hearing from him you should consider having the camera checked. I am not sure where in the south-east of England you live, but Martin Stent, who services and repairs Bolex cameras, happens also to live in the south-east of England. He is a nice guy, and I would be happy to let you have his telephone number by PM if you would like it, and I am sure Martin would be more than able to service your camera for you. Let me know ...

Hi Ashley. I sent you a PM on this.

I do not wish to be monopolising this discussion in any way, but yes I have seen the Kodak advice. I said that I had had regard to what Kodak have said on the subject of X-raying in an earlier posting. The need to thoroughly inspect all parcels is understood in light of recent terrorist activities. International travel is especially taxing because international airports are becoming less and less receptive to permitting hand inspection, primarily because of the volume of people that pass through these airports on a daily basis. This quote from the Kodak web page appears to recognise that it is becoming difficult to get hand inspections of film at international airports. Any checked baggage may be subject to high-intensity x-ray scanning in a machine that is out of sight of travelers. Airline check-in agents rarely, if ever, warn travelers of this. Kodak is pressing for warning notices to be posted at check-in desks and for verbal warnings to be given to travelers. Never pack unprocessed film in baggage that will be checked. This quote warns against shipping film in "checked-in" luggage. Carry-on baggage inspection conveyors using low intensity x-rays, used at security checkpoints in US airports, usually do not affect film. However, these machines may now be supplemented in some cases by high intensity machines that will fog all unprocessed film. Travelers should be wary of all scanners at foreign airports. Travelers should politely insist on hand-inspection of their film. Carry a changing bag for use by the inspector. Demonstrate how it is used, with a can of fogged film as an example. However, there is no guarantee that your request will be granted by local inspectors, who may insist on x-ray inspection. Hand inspection may not be permitted in some airports outside the US. This quote draws the distinction between X-ray machines used for "checked-in" luggage and those generally used for "carry-on" luggage; acknowledges that the weaker machines "usually do not affect film", although this may not be the case with machines installed in some airports; and it again recognises the difficulty of getting hand checking in airports in countries other than the USA. I am not sure how these publications would therefore assist in getting hand checks undertaken if customs officers are being difficult, and it might be wise to have regard to the fact that carelessly undertaken hand inspection of film could pose a greater risk. At the end of the day, I guess one has to strike a balance on taking what generally seems to be regarded by Kodak as a limited risk and the need to ship film, and there seems to be not much more one can say.

I was under the impression that you had earlier said that you have never taken film through customs, so perhaps you are under the impression that travellers have a right to have film inspected by hand. Perhaps that is so in the USA, but if you look at other postings you will see that that it is not so in other Countries. So if you cannot persuade customs officers to examine film by hand, you either take the film through X-ray or you abandon it. Sometimes you cannot have film processed in the Country in question simply because there is no processing lab there. As for film speed markings, all of the filmstock I buy and use carries the manufacturer's rating, and I appreciate that one can expose the film at a different setting for particular reasons, However, whilst you may think that customs officers are fools, rest assured that in the UK they are quite capable of noticing that the packaging has been changed. Sticking a patch over the manufacturer's labelling would be something else to explain away and, if they will not inspect by hand, it will do nothing to get them to do so. None of this, however, changes things. So far there seems to be little evidence that taking film through X-ray as cabin luggage, whilst not entirely free of risk, is a great risk. We are not overwhelmed with complaints that those who have done this have found their film ruined, and even Kodak says the risk is a "may be" at lower exposure rates rather than a "will be". My experience supports this.