Slashdot Mirror


Kodak Ends Production of Acetate Base For Photographic Film

McGruber writes "According to a report by Rochester, NY CBS affiliate WROC Kodak has ended in-house production of the cellulose acetate base that is the primary component of photographic film. Popular Photography magazine adds that, for more than 100 years, Kodak has made the acetate in house in bulk, providing the structural basis for the company's film. Now, with Kodak in bankruptcy, the company is firing 60 workers and shutting down the acetate machinery. Citing the decline in interest in film photography as a primary cause, Kodak will no longer undertake the time intensive process of acetate production. Thankfully, the company has large stockpiles of the material, and once that runs out they will source it from elsewhere."

4 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry... by fluxmov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...when the last commercial film runs out, we'll be coating glass plates with home-mixed emulsions!

  2. still produced by a former part of Kodak by Trepidity · · Score: 5, Informative

    Interestingly, the former chemicals division of Eastman Kodak, spun off in the 1990s as the Eastman Chemical Company, is still one of the major producers of cellulose acetate. While its usage as a film base usage is declining, its usage for lots of things, ranging from cigarette filters to LCD screens, is increasing.

  3. Re:Thankfully by IheatMyAptWithCPUs · · Score: 5, Funny

    " Thankfully, the company has large stockpiles of the material, and once that runs out they will source it from elsewhere."

    Thankfully, in 20 years we'll have rich trust-fund hipster-kids developing on film "before it was cool."

    -- Ethanol-fueled

    Thankfully, today's economy should result in fewer trust-fund-hipster-douche-bags.

  4. Re:Sad, but inevitable. by PhotoJim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Negative film has much superior exposure latitude to digital. There wasn't a need for HDR techniques with negative film - you could capture the dynamic range on the film. (Granted there were few ways to get all that range on paper, but there are now thanks to digital manipulation.)

    Also, there's the issue of archivability. Black and white negative materials are inherently archival if processed at all well. Furthermore, this archivalness is passive, requiring little to no effort on the behalf of the photographer. Digital requires migration from device to device on a certain schedule, or data loss is inevitable. (Of course, if you do actually migrate it, you have a perfect copy of your data, but you actually have to do it.)

    There are a lot of older technologies that have serious advantages over modern ones - I'm not a big fan of vinyl records (CD was more than good enough for me) but I buy CDs in preference to downloaded lossy formats, and even use fountain pens because of their superior anti-fatigue properties compared to ballpoint and gel pens (and their environmental superiority). Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better.