Slashdot Mirror
Kodak To Stop Selling Film Cameras In U.S.
MikeDataLink writes "Kodak has announced today that they are no longer going to sell or manufacture film based cameras in the USA or Europe (except for disposables) and instead concentrate on Digital cameras. It looks like consumers have spoken and film is finally going to go the way of the dinosaur."
The editor here reeks of technogeek bigotry. Kodak hasn't produced a really noteworthy film camera since the then omnipresent brownie, anyway.
They still make film, though, and that's what they do best. I don't see Kodak abandoning film anytime soon. Discontinuing classic films like Tri-X, Technical Pan or Kodachrome would only earn them a worldwide boycott from professional photographers. I think they learned their lesson when they discontinued Kodachrome 25 a while back.
It looks like consumers have spoken and film is finally going to go the way of the dinosaur."
How can you make this statement based on the actions of a company who hasn't been a market leader in non-disposable film cameras since the 1940's? I haven't seen a Kodak film camera (barring disposable cameras) since the "Kodak disk".
This is like saying the telephone is dead since AT&T will no longer make telephones.
I recently went on vacation, and my digital camera died right before I left. I picked up a couple of $9 27 exposure disposable cameras in the checkout line of the supermarket.
I took the pictures, came back and had them developed at the 1 hour booth in a CVS. It cost me $22.50 or so to get my 50ish pictures back.
Freaking expensive, plus half of the pictures didn't turn out, and had I had a digital camera I would have retaken them on the spot!
you can enlarge a 35mm print into a giant poster with no noticeable problems and no pixelation. as far as i know you can;t do that with digital yet, you actually have to have that high resolution. so, kodak is making a big mistake, because they will lose lots of customers who were using their film based products for things like posters etc.. just my two cents
Investing forum
There are some fine art photographers that use film.
For instance, there is nothing to compare to a platinum or paladium contact print from an 8x10 or 11x14 film sheet. I know, it's a nitch area...but this can also be a selling point for a photographer.
For instance, purchasing a print that was made the old fashion way can make it worth more. Also, a platinum print will last forever as long as you take care of the paper it's printed on.
I know that digital is here to stay, but I've yet to see a camera that can last as long as a film camera. For example, a digital camera bought just 2 years ago is almost unsupported and is very outclassed by newer and cheaper cameras. Yet, I could pick up a Leica made 50 years ago and still run film through it! I know several photographers that have cameras passed down to them from their parents/grandparents. Who's going to pass down their Canon G5 20 years from now?
Also, with film, you can pick up an Ansel Adams negative made 80 years ago and make a print from it. How will archiving last that long for digital? CDROM? Isn't the lifespan of a CD only like 20 years at best? You'll have to keep updating your pictures to newer and newer media. They still haven't gotten around that yet.
Just things to think about...
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
According to some, to get the quality of 35mm analog film you'll need at least 10 megapixels on your digital camera.
You can buy such a camera, but be prepared to spend over 1,000 USD. I'm not so sure film is going to be disappearing any time soon.
WARNING: If accidentally read, induce vomiting.
Kodak cameras have always been of below-average quality AFAIK (even dating back to the 1930's), so it's not like they're giving up on what was previously known as their staple product.
When a company known for their cameras, like Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, etc. gives up on "analog" cameras, then we'll really be reaching a milestone. However, I suspect that will never happen (or not happen anytime soon) due to the usefulness of analog cameras in photography as an art.
To make what in my view is a very clever analogy (because I thought of it), it's like turntables - they won't ever stop being produced altogether because of their demand in artistic (i.e. DJ) circles. However, I'm sure that we'll see the number of companies that develop film decrease over time. If I were Ritz Camera (a popular one-hour photo chain the northeastern US), I might be getting rather scared.
Im not hugely clued up on the whole camera thing. But i know for a fact that a 200 dollar SLR camera is going to give far superior pictures than a similarly priced digital camera. The only inconveinience is getting the film developed.
.!
Until high quality digital cameras come down in price i think it will be a while before film dies....
and then there is the whole hollywood movies thing going on too
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Such as GPS or EXIF data, which, if it had been available back then, would allow to you place your ancestor within a meter of wherever the photo was taken. Yep, studying those old negatives for hours really has us beat, today.
You certainly have a point, but your glib response betrays your ignorance. GPS or EXIF would allow me to place where, but not always when. Additionally, annotation of images is not always possible, especially when there is additional information in the image that might not be apparent from first glance. An example: One of the images I have is my grandfather in an automobile somewhere in Italy. Examining the guy next to him revealed information on his name tag and rank with enhancement of his face to reveal his identity. (one Gen. James H. Doolittle)
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
...when it's really gone - it has a certain look & feel that is very unique...
This is just like those conversations about CD audio replacing vinyl, or solid-state amplifiers replacing tubes. Generally, it's about digital versus analog.
Walk into any good record shop (not Tower Records...) and ask if they've got any vinyl; I guarantee that you'll see a lot of it. I think that the worse-case scenario for what will happen to traditional film vs. digital film will be similar to the vinyl vs. CD war. There will always be people who choose vinyl, tubes, and traditional film. They may not be the majority, but they will always be around.
Newer isn't always better.
"I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera."
*EVERYBODY* had a Brownie, including me.
And then, *EVERYBODY* had a Brownie 8mm camera,
including me. I still have these.
When 126 film came out, Kodak enjoyed great sales of Instamatics. Polaroid, around 1969 if I remember correctly, had a great run that probably hurt Kodak seriously. "Squeeze and turn knob to best YES." Remember that?
Then 110 film came out. Again, the Kodak instamatic was EVERYWHERE.
I used to be an avid photographer, but once I smelled the air in a town with a film plant, I decided I couldn't support it anymore. I've been around all kinds of chemical plants, plastics mfg, etc. But the Kodak plant in Longview Texas takes the cake. That town is not just toxic, it's excruciatingly painful just to drive through on the interstate with your windows up and the vents sealed. The idea that anyone can live within 20 miles of that place really shocks me.
I don't think you have to be much of a tree hugger to be appalled by this. Even if you don't think there's health risks or environmental consequences, it's gotta be enough just that it's plain gross. Yet people live there, somehow or another.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I think of Digital cameras as akin to most consumer film cameras.
My Canon Powershot G3 takes much better pictures then my daughters cheap Kodak 110 but not as nice as my Canon AE-1.
Film cameras went through the same incremental increases in ability just like the film they use.
I have been scanning my grandparents pictures from the 30's, 40's and 50's and even though they are large format ( 2" X 3") they are still pretty grainy.
This is a limitation of the film ( Kodak BTW) not necessarily of the camera.
Digitals camera make it cheaper and easier to take more pictures than ever.
I can only think this will lead to better documentation of our time not worse.
I grew up in the Fulda Gap, where did you?
I personally do not care for Kodak film. (Well, black and white film at least).
It seemed to be a bit more grainy and also seemed to lack the contrast of what I'm used to (Ilford HP5).
Anyone else think the same? Or can suggest some alternative (I'm always looking for something new) film I might like given that I like Ilford HP5?
WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
Even Paul Simon, when he wrote a whole damn song about Kodak film, admitted to using a Nikon camera.
Obviously he loved the film, didn't like the camera.
No big loss.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
Additionally, annotation of images is not always possible, especially when there is additional information in the image that might not be apparent from first glance
EXIF data, including a timestamp, is stored in the image file automatically by the camera. Both my Canon G1 and S30 do this automatically without harming either the image or using the space between frames.
Examining the guy next to him revealed information on his name tag and rank with enhancement of his face to reveal his identity
I think you are trying to suggest that film has more stops of light sensitivity and higher resolution than film. While film may exceed consumer CCDs in terms of resolution, many consumer CCDs already cover both IR and visible spectra with many stops of exposure latitude.
B) no mention that Kodak was NEVER a major player in the Pro and semi pro camera market like Nikon, Minolta, and Cannon. They where a big player in the amature market but they havent made a good AND cheap point and click in years, at least in comparison to how good their brownie was.
Honestly it doesnt bother me in that Kodak is getting out of the film camera buisness. where it DOES bother me is that people not in the know about the photography world might take this as a sign that EVERYONE should get out of the film camera buisness which is bullshit.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Though it is highly symbolic that the company that invented the Brownie will no longer produce cameras, i think the dinosaur comment is a bit premature, and overly dramatic.
1) Kodak is stopping production of film based cameras, not film. They never were heavy into point and shoot 35mm. A lot of competition there. I don't believe they ever manufactured a 35mm SLR. They created and defined Advantix, and I think the most dramatic change will be here, and saying that they're stopping their Advantix camera production spells the end of film is, well, exaggerating. Advantix will go away, not the way of the donosaur, but more the way of the Kodak Disc - a format designed for ease of use, but with image quality and film availability issues. I gave away my Advantix because getting decent low light film is impossible. At one time, the best you could get was 400 speed. Significantly, this was a Fuji emulsion, not Kodak.
All in all, this more spells the death-knell of Advantix, not film in general.
2) Kodak has just released a lot of new film emulsions, in color print, color slide, and B/W variations. Their R&D will probably slow, but it will be a long time before they stop completely. Fuji, Konica, Agfa, and I think Ilford as well have also all released new emulsions in the last year.
3) Many companies are releasing new film SLRs. Canon, part of the vanguard of Digital, just released an updated Rebel Ti (EOS 300), and even a model just under it, the Rebel K2 (not sure of foreign designation) and re-released the Rebel G to get the very low end of SLRs Kodak has released the F55 and F65, and F75 all very recently, while having a very big digital inventory. They're looking to supplement film for now.
4) Though digital cameras have many advantages over film ones and have converts every day, film still has advantages over the current crop of digital cameras, and will continue to do so for some time. These extend from image capture, to processing, to image storage, to print longevity. Film can not be replaced completely until it no longer has advantages in any of these areas.
5) Inertia. People have 35mm cameras, thousands invested in some. Theyr'e not just going away.
As for me, I suspect I will turn digital at some time. I'll buy a Digital SLR to replace one of the 35MM film SLRs that I currently own, and try to sell or give away my old one. Film will slowly change from being the mainstream to being a hobbyist format. It will never become a dinosaur, because there will always be people that feel it gives them something artistically that digital doesn't. The dwindling customer base will affect economies of scale. There will be no new emulsions because you can't justify the R&D, then some unpopular ones will be culled. But there will always be B/W 35mm film, and ther will always people who want to print their own.
That is a large part of Kodak's problem. They make a good, relatively cheap film for the small user. (Compare to the other films you can buy at the local store, normlaly only Fuji, which isn't as good according to most people) My sister spends close to one thousand dollars are year on film and developing, and it is all Kodak. The film, the paper it is printed on, and the processing all have are Kodak.
Many pros are nearly all digital, because speed matters more than quality when you want to get your photo on the front page by the morning edition. The few pros that are left care about quality enough that kodak isn't good enough for them, and they will pay extra for those smaller brands like Ilford that are better.
Home users are going digital, but a little more slowly. Compare the cost of film to a digital camera, and eventially digital is cheaper. However a roll of film here and there is $10-$15 for 20-30 pictures. A digital camera is much less per picture, and you can choose which pictures to print, but if you already have a film camera but not a digital film is cheaper in the short run.
Film is going the way of the vacuum tube. I remember as a kid going to the local K-mart to test all the tubes in our TV, and buying replacements for the bad ones from the same store. (those machines were known to say a tube was either bad or worse, but that is a different story) Today only a few hobbiests and collectors deal with tubes (other than CRTs) and they have to search for suppliers. Today Wal-Mart and Target have 1 hour photos, but in the future they won't. They might keep their digital photo print station for a while longer though unless good printers become worth the cost.
Oh bulllshit. BillG and Corbis are only in it for the money. The REAL people who are preserving images for the historical record work at the Getty Museum. Their goal is to have an archival photograph of every known artwork in the world. They primarily use B&W prints since those are the most stable. They built an underground vault at the new museum in Santa Monica to store all the prints, it's designed to survive a direct nuclear attack on LA. It should be noted that photographs can survive an EMP but no digital media can.
I am an advanced photo student who has not gone digital yet for the following reasons: 1. Cost - I've invested close to 2K in Nikon SLR hardware in the last four years and to duplicate such a setup in dSLR gear is EXTREMELY expensive (if I'm talking 35mm quality or better) 2. Quality - film is simply more deailed... i'll just use my negative scanner... 3. Archival: Good film negatives will last 5-10 decades... digital files are good only as long as you can read them. I would love to see a permenent 'negative'-like object for digital (platform independant & exceedingy durable. 4. B&W - to my knowledge, there is no dSLR that captures the 'metallic' aspect of good B&W negatives - and yes, I know that this is an effect of the silver emulsion... I just love it ...however, Kodak's PhD cameras were worthless anyway... just so long as they don't kill TMX-100 or Portra-200
---
Granted if the cost is the same I'll go for better quality. However when the cost isn't the same I'll examine if quality is worth it. Todays $200 digital cameras are good enough. Not as good as a $200 35mm, but still good enough. They are likely better than the 110 camera I had as a kid (though 110 was a lot cheaper than $200) Now factor in the convience of digital: I can see the photo right away, and choose which ones to print. That makes the prints cheaper on a per picture taken basis, and likely on a per printed picture basis too.
No the quality isn't the same, but it turns out that digital has now reached the point where most people don't need more.
This is news? Ok, I suppose it is, but it was only a matter of time. Kodak's been laying people off left and right, they already stopped making slide projectors, are loosing contracts for mini-labs to Fuji everywhere, given the kiss-off to their valued dealers, and announced they will not be improving any of their film emulsions anymore. That's right: the Kodak film that's out now is the best it will ever be! Why on earth would they make film cameras anymore?
You're assuming that he meant interpolating to a larger size. There are real issues with dealing with the scaling issues between the grid of pixels in the digital image and the grid of blobs of ink that the printer can produce. Keep in mind that printers have limited control over drop size, so there's a balance between color depth and spatial resolution.
;)
That aspect of getting a good print alone is non-trivial.
Everyone's beating on the resolution of film. But remember that the noise in film is much higher than modern digital systems, so the amount of information in a film image is less than the raw resolution would suggest. (Especially since those resolution numbers are usually at 1000:1 contrast. Look at the 1.6:1 numbers before you presume that film blows away digital.)
And, as rebelcool pointed out, you're mixing formats. There are two amazingly sharp photograps on my folks' living room wall. I took them with an 11x14, loaded with Cibachrome. These are truly one-of a kind...the emulsion on the wall *is* the emulsion that was exposed in-camera. Even contact prints aren't this sharp. But that doesn't have anything to do with the film vs. digital debate until there's a 11x14 CCD back available. (And don't get me started on scanning backs and temporal iridescence.
You have violated Robot's Rules of Order and will be asked to leave the future immediately.
Some 35mm cameras do pans, but there's no 100% sure way for a photofinisher to tell that it is a pan unless it is examined by an operator. That is a (small) advantage of APS over 35mm.
Hey -
I shoot 4X5 film.
Show me a one-shot (not a scanning back) 20-square inch digital sensor or a smaller sensor that equals the resolution of this much Fuji Provia, and I'll buy you a Canon 1Ds. Seriously.
You cannot - CANNOT produce a 600 MB file in 1/250th of a second with the quality of 4X5 inch film. Period. Film has the inherent advantage of being easily scaled in size to fit the image circle of the lens you're using, and it's also vastly cheaper per square foot - I don't see this advantage going away for a long, long time.
Put another way, I can use a $500.00 camera and lens bought on eBay and film that costs $2.50/sheet to make an image equivalent to about a 60megapixel file - in 1/500th of a second.
I shoot digital too - and enjoy it. For fine art and very large prints, there is still no true equal to having lots of square inches of film. For everyday folks (the same ones who bought 110 film...then Disc film...then Advantix), digital is more than adequate.
Digital is also a lot tougher to characterize easily; like the 'look' of Fuji Velvia? Want that in a sensor? Sorry - not even a custom color profile can make up for the variations between cameras and manufacturers.
Every model of sensor has it's own unique gamut and response to light, and there's no getting around this; on the other hand, a particular brand of film has a far more consistent reaction to light across several film sizes than a smattering of digital cameras from 3-14 megapixels.
I hate it when geeks try to reduce stuff like this to numbers - there are many more considerations than simple resolution or ease-of-use ask any professional photographer.
Blanket opinion forwarded as fact:
"If you want pure reproduction, then digital and solid state electronics is the way to go."
While the original poster does refer to warmth, that depends. All amplification systems distort, including solid state. Solid state distorts and dumps power into odd order harmonics, while tubes distort and dump power into even order harmonics. It just so happens that most humans on this planet prefer even order to odd order harmonics. So, no, you are incorrect, if you want flavorful distortion vs. ragged, edgey, makes my toes curl distortion, then use tubes in your power stages. If you want cheap (or expensive if we are talking ML33s), high power "yo, I can weld with this" power amplifiers for bragging rights and don't really care how the music sounds when played at demanding levels, buy solid state.
I agree with the digital sections, however, to get the signal to the amps. Mathematics rules in the digital domain, and purity is a function of resolution and sample rates.
One more point --- I also do not agree with building a tube amp that intentionally distorts more than the absolute minimum that can be achieved in a beefy design. Warmth for the sake of warmth, is not acceptable.
TurboD
If you read the article, only their film cameras are going away, not the film!!! Matter of fact new film is being developed.
I'll agree film is dead when I can get the same quality photo for LESS than what it costs me now to use my film cameras.
I'm curious though as to how many photographers are just consumer photographers who never look at their prints. Essentially, only take photos to take photos. They don't DO anything with them. They don't appreciate the beauty of the subject, its not framed. Its point, click, done, and never seen again.
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
And no doubt a few other reasons....
(I've recently just gone back to using film as I wasn't happy with my digital but my concession to technology is doing my own developing, scanning the output and printing off just what i need burning the rest onto DVD's for achiving.)
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.