Kodak Axes Digicams, but keeps film

[MattKing]

They also drive on the wrong side of the road.

Just like those in Japan

 

[Photo Engineer]

Another POV: http://www.btlnews.com/awards/embracing-the-digital-divide-in-a-dazzling-year-for-cinematography/

PE

 

[wblynch]

In the 1980's Harley-Davidson was on the ropes and had to make major changes in its business. Everyone pronounced them dead. Especially the Japanese brand motorcycle fans.

Funny thing though. Harley-Davidson completely redesigned and retooled their entire line. They kept the traditional values and appeal, including the heavy, quality construction and concentrated on the image and feel of riding a Harley.

Business boomed for H-D for the next 25 years. Other companies have tried desperately to copy their motorcycles but none have been successful.

And you can still read the same arguments on the motorcycle forums today. It never ends.

But the point remains that there are dedicated Harley Davidson customers that won't ride anything else. It's the experience that they want.

Thank the "hipsters" of the motorcycle world for saving an American icon.

Well, with film photography and Kodak, we have a situation very similar to Harley-Davidson. There are many people licking their chops demanding the death of Kodak and film photography. But for millions of people, film photography is the experience they want.

All the people praying for film's death are going to be disappointed and 25 years from now we will be reading these same arguments on the forums.

I am ecstatic the Kodak is keeping their film and paper alive and my prayer is for Perez to be cast out onto the street with nothing more than a pocketful of cheap ink cartridges.

 

[Louis Nargi]

In the a Freestyle email snapshot they said that Kodak's film sales went up 20% last year.

 

[Aristophanes]

Another POV: http://www.btlnews.com/awards/embracing-the-digital-divide-in-a-dazzling-year-for-cinematography/

PE

Thanks for that. Interesting read. The same discussion we have here is happening in the MP world as well, with far more money on the line.

 

[Wayne]

In the 1980's Harley-Davidson was on the ropes and had to make major changes in its business. Everyone pronounced them dead. Especially the Japanese brand motorcycle fans.

Funny thing though. Harley-Davidson completely redesigned and retooled their entire line. They kept the traditional values and appeal, including the heavy, quality construction and concentrated on the image and feel of riding a Harley.

And Japanese bikes STILL kick Harley's ass in every category except "shiny arrogant noise".

 

[Roger Cole]

And Japanese bikes STILL kick Harley's ass in every category except "shiny arrogant noise".

True. But Kodak has superb products too. So they should have it easier.

OTOH, Harley fans would and will pay what it costs to ride a Harley even when they could ride a better bike made in Japan for less money. Considering the whining about film costs (see thread about the price of 120 Tri-X going up) bikers either have a lot more money or are a lot more willing to spend it than film photographers who seem to all be either broke or just plain cheap. (Or they shoot an ungodly amount of film, which I know some folks here do. But for the few rolls and dozen or two dozen sheets I might get to shoot per month, it just doesn't matter much.)

 

[clayne]

Another POV: http://www.btlnews.com/awards/embracing-the-digital-divide-in-a-dazzling-year-for-cinematography/

PE

Right, but there's a bit of non-critical analysis in that article too PE. Some of the same kind of vibe as "oh well if it's 'good enough' then digital or film will be fine either way" - and the question is then, what's good enough? And what's good? Is good sharpness? Punch? Contrast, blah blah.

I just want a stable non-linear medium, with character, which we can all work with and appreciate - not having to be driven by the constant march of technology - as it's all just a distraction to quality *output*. They're not even using a full 24x36mm frame and motion picture film is completely fine from a resolution and quality standpoint. Fine enough to stop worrying about continuously.

Technology is usually designed to sell crap - and in the minority number of cases, actually designed to advance us all forward.

Thanks for that. Interesting read. The same discussion we have here is happening in the MP world as well, with far more money on the line.

Of which film costs are no where near the majority of a typical major film budget.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I posted that without comment.

PE

 

[removed account4]

someone posted a vid clp of quentin tarantino the other day and he had some
choice things to say about digital movies ... i wish i had the link, i'd post it.

it seems the moviemaker Georges Méliès suffered a similar fate that film based
artists ( movies and still images ) are suffering today ( but long before we were alive ) ...
i don't think that we'll get a hero's re-naissance though ( as he did ) ...

 

[hoffy]

someone posted a vid clp of quentin tarantino the other day and he had some
choice things to say about digital movies ... i wish i had the link, i'd post it.

it seems the moviemaker Georges Méliès suffered a similar fate that film based
artists ( movies and still images ) are suffering today ( but long before we were alive ) ...
i don't think that we'll get a hero's re-naissance though ( as he did ) ...

Where's our Tarantino................?

 

[clayne]

Where's our Tarantino................?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BON9Ksn1PqI

Speaks truth.

Once all limitations are removed entirely, such that same kind of "digital workflow" is done for MP that has been done for still, all output will then be completely pre-visualized and chimped out in it's entirety - resulting in a feedback loop of CRAP.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Another POV: http://www.btlnews.com/awards/embracing-the-digital-divide-in-a-dazzling-year-for-cinematography/

I did not know that about Schindler’s List. It explains a lot. For years I have commented to others asking how such a difficult to watch film could be so magnificently photographed. Now I know the answer.

Ken

 

[walbergb]

Is a "new" Kodak taking shape?

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2012/02/09/business/09reuters-kodak.html?hp

What does this mean for Kodak chemicals, both film and paper:confused:

 

[clayne]

What does this mean for Kodak chemicals, both film and paper:confused:

Made by Champion for a couple years now.

 

[MattKing]

What does this mean for Kodak chemicals, both film and paper:confused:

Kodak chemicals are now made under license by Champion - have been since 2006. They moved their manufacturing from Mississauga, ON to Kodak's sites in France and Rochester, NY. Their french operations were then moved to Kuala Lumpur. They moved their R & D first to Rochester, and then to Kuala Lumpur.

Here is a link: http://www.championphotochemistry.com/milestones.php

Champion is one of the creditors listed as being owed a lot of money in the Kodak bankruptcy filing.

 

[wblynch]

And Japanese bikes STILL kick Harley's ass in every category except "shiny arrogant noise".

OTOH, Harley fans would and will pay what it costs to ride a Harley even when they could ride a better bike made in Japan for less money.

It is obvious you gentlemen are too poor or too chaep to own a quality machine. There is no better made bike than a Harley-Davidson. And certainly not cheaper.

And none will be kicking Harley's anything for longevity.

Anecdotal example: I once rode over an aluminum ladder spinning across the I-405 freeway at 75 mph on a Harley. The bike barely bounced as it went over, as the ladder got flipped over by the tires. The only damage was a dent to an exhaust pipe. I've ridden enough Japanese bikes to know none of them would have stayed on two wheels.

Sorry about the off-topic posting but it proves my point. Naysayers can't stand that Harley survives and they can't stand it that film (and Kodak) survives.

 

[Steve Smith]

There is no better made bike than a Harley-Davidson.

Apart from Vincent, Triumph and Norton.



Steve.

 

[Aristophanes]

Of which film costs are no where near the majority of a typical major film budget.

No, but digital intermediary is. Even if shot on film for its "look" and visual acuity, 99% of what is seen on the screen is scanned, ICEd, and edited digitally.

From a Kodak perspective, aside from ICE in limited application, the inability to apply this type of scanning to still photos and larger labs is a major problem for continued use of film among not only casual consumers, but a great number of hobbyists for whom a darkroom is not in the cards.

Then along comes Facebook and Flickr, and photo sharing is dominant but film is an agony to display as such compared to the billions of feet that go through the process via MP DI.

It's a Kodak missed market opportunity. Darkroom hobbyists cannot sustain an industrial market. Sadly, Kodak had (has) the tech to do this. Are they applying it? Nope. Why not? Don't know.

 

[CGW]

No, but digital intermediary is. Even if shot on film for its "look" and visual acuity, 99% of what is seen on the screen is scanned, ICEd, and edited digitally.

From a Kodak perspective, aside from ICE in limited application, the inability to apply this type of scanning to still photos and larger labs is a major problem for continued use of film among not only casual consumers, but a great number of hobbyists for whom a darkroom is not in the cards.

Then along comes Facebook and Flickr, and photo sharing is dominant but film is an agony to display as such compared to the billions of feet that go through the process via MP DI.

It's a Kodak missed market opportunity. Darkroom hobbyists cannot sustain an industrial market. Sadly, Kodak had (has) the tech to do this. Are they applying it? Nope. Why not? Don't know.

That's what's killing me now. Though I can still get high quality 120 film developing, that's it with no scanning for proofs or prints--a service that's just dried up in my area.

 

[removed account4]

film is an agony ?

drop it off at a lab, and get the cd is an agony ?
process + and scan it ... is an agony ...?

i worked at a portrait studio where
they shot in film and digitally at the same time.
this allowed them to sell the pages of images
AND make high quality prints.

it would kill 2 birds with one stone if a camera was made
that looked like a stereo camera ( or used cheap beam splitter )
and captured one image on film and the other digitally, so images could be shared instantly
and processed as well. it would boost both the film end, and allow people who
"are in agony" to feed their instant gratification ...

 

[CGW]

film is an agony ?

drop it off at a lab, and get the cd is an agony ?
process + and scan it ... is an agony ...?

i worked at a portrait studio where
they shot in film and digitally at the same time.
this allowed them to sell the pages of images
AND make high quality prints.

it would kill 2 birds with one stone if a camera was made
that looked like a stereo camera ( or used cheap beam splitter )
and captured one image on film and the other digitally, so images could be shared instantly
and processed as well. it would boost both the film end, and allow people who
"are in agony" to feed their instant gratification ...

Point is that labs can't won't do it for 120. No shortage of so-so quality Noritsu/Frontier 35mm dev/scan/print service. Hybrid, much loathed hereabouts, is about all I can do--and I suspect I'm not alone.

 

[Rudeofus]

No, but digital intermediary is. Even if shot on film for its "look" and visual acuity, 99% of what is seen on the screen is scanned, ICEd, and edited digitally.

Chances are that Hollywood film strips are not scanned frame by frame on Nikon 9000s or Imacons either (that's what many scan labs in Central Europe offer and what makes it so atrociously expensive). They must have scanners which work faster, with a lot less user interaction and multiple formats beyond 35mm.

[hypothesis&conjecture mode] If Hollywood indeed buys Kodak's film assets, this together with state of the art scanning could provide exactly the kind of service you've asked for and in private ownership. [/hypothesis&conjecture mode]

 

[Photo Engineer]

When I retired, Kodak took a retirement photograph of me and my wife. This was done with an RZ67 with a back that took 120 film and had a digital capture device as well that showed the poses on a video screen. As we watched and adjusted our poses, the photographer snapped an image. He took 2 rolls of 120. Then we reviewed the photos captured to disk and picked 2. He earmarked them and sent us proof prints from the film. We picked one and got back our portrait package of prints.

So, the marriage was being done and done well over 10 years ago!

As for Hollywood buying into Kodak's film business, I think that the only viable party would be Sony Entertainment.

PE

 

[keithwms]

Sorry but this rant has been a long time coming...

Would people please stop whining about not being able to get same-day local processing!!!!!!! Who gives a fig? Not I, that's for sure. I didn't invest in a bunch of 11x14 provia with the assumption that Costco or anyone else would run it for me.

Good grief, I've never seen so much pointless whining. And on a forum where members make their own emulsions and developers and papers and wax poetic about owning the whole process

Look, if convenience is your thing, or if you think your own film-derived art isn't investible any more, or if you think the splitup of Kodak is the end of analogue photography then go get a dSLR and leave us in peace!! We'll get along just fine without you, somehow...

That's all, I feel better now.