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."
I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera. Not that I debate that they exist, but rather that we should all just keep this announcement in perspective. A film company announcing that it will stop selling cameras is like a shipping company saying it's going to stop selling ships. Much more note worthy is that they were trying to sell them in the first place.
This is what the financial blokes refer to as a false indicator, especially if anyone reads the decline of film into it. Kodak has never been good at selling cameras (well perhaps it the 50s and 60s for a bit). Getting out of that business is a good move for them regardless of the viability of the film market.
fire
Film is not going the way of the dinosaur...you guys always have to take it to a level. The creative market still has a use for film, and I know plenty of people for whom digital is not yet good enough...
Film still has the ability to store information that digital formats will take years to catch up to. For instance, my grandfather was in the OSS in WWII and had a collection of photographs he gave to me after he passed away. Going to the film (and even the prints), I am able to apply some image forensics pull out detail that would never be possible with digital images. There are street names, ID numbers on planes and names on nametags that I have been able to pull out to date photographs and identify individuals that has been a tremendous advantage in reconstructing his career with the Service. Through this analysis, I have been able to place him in places that history has labeled as occupied territory at time, identify other folks that he worked with etc....
Also, digital photography while convenient has archival issues just like traditional silver based photography and one has to wonder if we are going to have the same historical record 50, 60 or 100 years from now that we currently have.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
There are already too many kids that don't get the line "Shake it like a Polaroid picture" in Outkast's "Hey Ya."
C'mon Konak, Walgreens is sold out and I still need a hundred more for the bulet-time shot in my movie!
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
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.
If they had announced that they won't be making film anymore this would be an interesting announcement. As it is, this is like Cheveron or Shell announcing that they aren't going to make automobiles anymore without mentioning if they are going to stop selling gasoline or not.
Lasers Controlled Games!
What is really tolling the death-knoll of film-based cameras for the general consumer is the entry of stores like Whalgreens, Costco and Walmart into the digital "development" market. When a digital camera required a computer and photo printer to produce photos you could hold, they didn't make financial sense for a lot of people. But now that you can "develop" a digital picture at the local drugstore for around twenty-five cents, digital cameras suddenly become economically competitive for the consumer taking snapshots.
The cake is a pie
Consumers may have spoken, but what they said was that they prefer to buy their film cameras from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Konica, Bronica, Hasseblad, Mamiya, Toyo, Linhoff, leica, Contax, Horseman, Sinar, Rollei, even Fuji....in fact anybody so long as they aren't called Kodak.
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.
You don't really need a crystal ball for that - especially when it happens to be true. Even though prices continue to come down, and memory and resolution continue to increase, I still can't afford to purchase a digital camera which could equal my old Nikon in image quality, color fidelity, and responsiveness.
Nevertheless, for day-to-day photography my wife's Canon digital camera is perfectly adequate, and I imagine many consumers feel the same way.
Kodak has been losing market share to Fuji for quite a while anyway, especially in the professional market. Kodak has been investing a lot of money and research in "Digital Color Science" for well over a decade - they've been preparing to abandon film for a long time.
2) Even if big guys like Nikon, Canon and Minolta announced that they would no longer manufacture film cameras, there would still be a huge quantity of cameras left to sell, *AND* you can bet that film manufacturers and developers would still be in business for a loooong time.
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
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.
I don't think this has anything to do with the demise of film. It's about no longer producing products that aren't as profitable as they'd like. If they stopped making 35mm film, then we'd have something notable.
There is something interesting in the press release; Kodak indicates that they will
This looks like an indirect reference to plans for phasing out the production of APS films, which have never caught on to the degree that the industry had hoped.
You are right that it will be a long, long time before real photographers use digital. But I believe that we are only a few years before the bulk of consumer photography is digital.
I am actually a "real" photographer who has embraced digital photography due to its convenience and cost issues. I was raised on standard B&W and color film photography in 35mm and large format photography and have a passion for those formats as well. But digital does have its place in semi-pro and pro shooting. In fact, a recent National Geographic article on flight was shot entirely with digital cameras and Apple Powerbook computers.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
What you may not realize is that Kodak makes a great deal of royalties off of most CCDs manufactured. The have the patents on color filter gels that are placed down with photolithography over the CCDs (and CMOS?) that go into most digital cameras.
I suspect they make tons more on this than any profits from cameras they would make.
...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.
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.
Consumers have spoken, and Kodak digital cameras are going the way of the dinosaur. They use proprietary drivers instead of the standard USB Mass Storage protocol most other cameras are using. This means it's extremely difficult to use them under Linux or BSD, even with a current gphoto. And Mac users are too used to *REAL* plug and play to bother with installing drivers, particularly for devices that shouldn't need them.
On the other hand, most UMass based cameras just work. Period. Without installing one damned driver anywhere, I can use it on my FreeBSD machine, my friends PowerBook, and my mom's Wind98SE system.
Having to carry around the Kodak Install CD just so you can grab your photos anywhere other than your own computer, is just silly. It sucks when you're on vacation. It's just another thing you have to remember to pack. "Dear, don't forget the Kodak CD! Remember that Aunt Martha uses a Canon camera instead..."
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
And what'll happen in another year? Film will still be around and people like you will be saying "Give it another year".
Don't be so sure about that.
Kodak isn't dumping the film line because the digitals are better - they are dumping them because the digital's are more profitable.
They start out by not letting you charge the camera's unless you have a base that you purchase seperately, or buy a wall charger.
It continues on to only 15.00 kodak batteries will charge in the base station.
Then, if you decide to upgrade from a 4000 series to a 6000 series camera, your 70 dollar base station is useless, and you have to buy another.
If you want to print your pictures on a kodak printstation - you'll have to buy for the 4000, then when you upgrade, you'll have to buy for the 6000.
With a film based camera - they don't get dick uunless you buy from Kodak.
Add to that kodak is another company that hires India to do its tech support, and you'll see how much they are saving.
Me? I purchased one o their 4000 series at best buy, then puchased their base for rapid recharge.
6 months into owning the camera - it stopped charging on the base. I called Kodak and they told me to get a new base for it - Best Buy swapped it, and it still wouldn't charge.
I brought the camera in (thank god I god the extended warrenty) and since best buy doesn't carry that 4220 anymore swapped it with a 6340.
I brought it home to set it up and found the base design differnt - after 4 hours yelling at the India girl and telling her "No, I'm not going to buy another f$@king base to charge my camera - since you were the one that told me to get my camera replaced."
After trips to best buy and an entangled battle with India - I finally got the base station swapped out and am currently charging my camera now.
Had I known that they were doing "series based" peripherals for the digital camera - I would NOT have gone with Kodak.
so to make a long rant short - Kodak knows where the money is to be made - that's why they are killing the film line.
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
for my photography I use a simple non-automatic camera with a single lens (200mm Nikkor.) This camera type has changed little sense it's invention. When you can show me a digital camera that can match the resolution of an 8x10 sheet of Illford film (or Kodak, or Fuji, or Agfa, or Konica, etc) then I will say film is dead. If a 35mm camera and it's 1.5 square inch bit of film can be replaced by 6 megapixels then my 800 square inch negatives will require a 3.2 GIGApixel camera. It should be noted that my camera+lens+film holder system cost less than a the 14 Megapixel machines that are top-of-the-line today. As a matter of fact, a year supply of film and darkroom chemistry and other supplies still run me less than a 14 megapixel digital and a 1 year suppluy of batteries. That said, most people outside the world of large format photography will be happy with the results you can get from a $4 disposable camera, so 6 megapixels will suit them fine. Next time you want a sharp 4x6 print you'll cget those results from a film camera..that is 4x6 FEET (Thing large gallery prints and large format advertisments.)
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
I have a 4 mp digital camera and I can get prints out of it that look as good as any film camera.
There are a few keys to making good prints from digital:
Good software. To make a print from digital to printer requires scaling and interpolation of the digital data from the camera's resolution to the printer's native resolution (ie 720 dpi) and the paper dimensions. There are half a dozen interpolation algorithms I can think off the top of my head (ie, bicubic, lanczos etc) and the quality of your print *depends* on these. My personal favorite printing software is QImage which uses Lanczos, and feeds the data to a printer driver in managable chunks rather than a quick dump, among other things. Its way, way better than choosing the simple "print" from photoshop.
You also need a properly calibrated printer and print profiles for the specific paper and ink you're using. Any decent commercial service should have this done already, but sometimes the button-pushers at your one-hour photomat don't really know what they're doing.
-
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
---
However, for more "artistic" photography, film is a great way to go. It's not just about the actual taking of the pictures, but also the developing of the film and the enlarging of prints. I for one enjoy the process, and it takes quite a bit more skill than just dumping the pictures into Photoshop and adjusting brightness/contrast, levels and colors and whatnot.
I beg to disagree. If you do enjoy the wet-photography process, more power to you. But you should realize that you would find yourself in the same niche that, say, woodworkers, exist in now. If you find in pleasant to mess around with a wet darkroom -- fine. Your choice. But with Photoshop I'll be able to do much more than you'll be able to do in a darkroom.
I've been there and I don't really miss the smell of the developer or the fixer stains on the fingers. I want to make good images -- not practice some ancient and obsolete craft. For making images, digital is much better than a wet darkroom. It's like using power tools compared to using traditional tools. Yes, maybe you lose some of the feel/magic/romance of the process. But the end result tend to be better...
And, by the way, Photoshop needs much skill to be used properly. I'd say that becoming skilled in Photoshop (or Corel PhotoPaint, or Gimp) is harder than getting a clue about darkroom chemistry.
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
I guess you haven't seen this yet, then, have you?
Yes, I realize it's not very practical for sports or photojournalism, but this is only going to get better and cheaper. Everyone who's bought a decent digital camera will tell you the same thing: for 90% of my work, digital does the same thing as film, only it's a shitload cheaper, a shitload easier, and offers some fantastic additional benefits. Think of media storage for instance -- storing slides or negs is a bitch, whether you're a pro dealing with cataloging thousands of images for business, or you're an amateur with a dozen shoe-boxes of holiday and travel shots. Digital makes this so easy it hurts.
Now, you can certainly argue the merits of film technology not requiring as much continued investment, but the fact is, the pro-sumer line of cameras that are out now rival film in all characteristics save one: tonal range. The room for new technological growth is still there, but at this point the 35mm evolution to digital is complete.
People that argue about resolution are missing the bigger picture: if I want to do anything with an image, whether digital or analog, the first thing I'm going to do is get it into my computer. That's easier when the format I'm shooting in is already digital. Also, if I'm scanning a slide, even on a *nice* scanner, you're not going to see any improvement over the 5 meg files I get out of my digital body. What you *will* see is lots of dust, which means a few hours Photoshopping. Most of the time, a sub $20k scanner's extra pixels are just interpolation, anyway. There's plenty of software that can do that with low-res images already.
In terms of maturity -- have you seen the long-exposure capabilities of Canon's digital line? Holy-freakin-shit! Even an EOS D60, which is now outdated, can produce 4-minute exposures with no noise. Nothing. Turn the night into day.
Then there's the added benefits for learning photographers. If you want to get good, you shoot your ass off. For the first couple of years, you toss out 35/36 shots. As you get better, you'll slowly lower that, but the fact is, developing that much film is expensive. And as a learning tool, if I'm going to figure out that a blown shot at f/8 would have been perfect at f/11, I need to know right after I've taken the shot. Not a week later when I finally get my film back. And that's only useful when I've recorded the exposure for every shot. Have you ever tried this? After a single roll you'll never want to do it again.
With digital, you get instant feedback as to what you're technically doing right or wrong. Hell, nice pro-sumer digitals offer color histograms of your shots. I can confidently say that with the right teacher, a digital camera will allow an amateur to develop the technical skills of a pro in under a year (now, the artistic skills may never come, but that's another issue entirely).
When you get into bigger boxes (8x10's and the like) you're talking about thousands of dollars of investment for good glass and equipment (and good luck with your processing costs -- you can always buy an enlarger!). Medium format equipment can run you several times more if you want the "35mm experience" like the fancy Mamiya 645's. Frankly, I don't see any advantage to traditional film unless you: 1) Already know what you're doing, and 2) Are currently making a living off of it. And even then I'd recommend it, unless you 3) Have already spent a huge chunk on medium or large-format, and are too unsophisticated to figure out how to "work the eBay".