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...
There are already too many kids that don't get the line "Shake it like a Polaroid picture" in Outkast's "Hey Ya."
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.
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.
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 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
---
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".