- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
From the discontiuance notice released yesterday,
.....This does not affect KODAK PROFESSIONAL Color Negative Films or KODAK PROFESSIONAL Black and White Films which remain a viable part of the KODAK PROFESSIONAL Film portfolio......
I would never believe what Kodak says from now on, never!!! Only a month or so ago, they said they would continue engaging films, and made an annoucment to us users not to worry about Kodak's films future, at least for a while. And then, they axed all their slides. I'm not saying that they should keep all their slides, but they should keep at least one of them, just for a little longer. It's a total disgrace! No one would surprise even if they axed all their Color Negatives or B&W next month!
I am starting to think Kodak is not going to divest the film business anymore.
they would have sold the film div with all it's attributes so the new investors can make a go at making production runs that reflect current market needs.
But they are saying there is no demand for slide film.
Who would want to buy this division?
How can you be so sure that they did not already try it?
It is so annoying when people just suppose they know everything.
Happily shooting astia and provia in all sizes, from 120, quickoad 4x5, to 8x10...Of course, just now somebody will say: you can't do that! the sky is falling! it's all over! no! you can't be happy! you can't, you shouldn't, you... aaaaaaaa........
Hmm, I think I'll buy another 8x10 box of astia.
ME Super wrote:
Sadly when slide film is gone, my presentations will probably largely go d*****l. Notice I didn't say capture... I've scanned some negatives I shot last spring and the detail in them is quite good, even when viewed on a computer screen. Guess I'll have to start saving up a few bucks for that other kind of projector that really stinks.
PKM-25 responds:
Don't be sad, be smart and prepare, try to come up with plans that lay out what you need to do in 5 year blocks, that is what I did with Kodachrome and it payed off, I shot over 35,000 Kodachromes in a span of less than 5 years, no crying, no regrets, just amazing images...
Slide film pushed camera development.
AE, bracketing, phase detect AF, matrix metering, and so on to make up for the lack of exposure latitude. These were features required by pros who were the drivers of slide film use.
In my work experience of dealing with pros. most of them used manual equipment, e.g. Hasselblad, Rollei and other MF, or LF Linhofs, etc. The extras which you mention were mainly directed at the advanced amateur...developments marketed to those who liked to have the latest gizmos to impress their friends. Rather like the massive digital cameras with lenses like elephants trunks which some like to sport these days. (along with their huge SUV's which never go futher off-road than the supermarket car park.....)
seems that I'll have to stick with Fujichrome like I've done for so many years now.
Certainly the long-lens 35mm was the camera for sports and action and the other uses which you mention, and these are the photographers which everyone sees and thinks of from their visibilty on TV coverage. A bank of 20-30 photographers can soon look like "thousands" in these circumstances. Photographers for magazines such as the Nat Geographic certainly used many pictures, but it is basically only one magazine.
I could argue that, for every one of those, there were many less visible photographers using manual cameras....studios, portraiture, advertising, product photography, commercial, industrial, police, pathology and medical (the ones which I personally dealt with), in every city in the land.
I'm not arguing, it is a matter of opinion and personal experience, but I think it is too easy to present things as a "fact" to support one's own views, rather than as a suggestion or discussion point.
In my work experience of dealing with pros. most of them used manual equipment, e.g. Hasselblad, Rollei and other MF, or LF Linhofs, etc. The extras which you mention were mainly directed at the advanced amateur...developments marketed to those who liked to have the latest gizmos to impress their friends. Rather like the massive digital cameras with lenses like elephants trunks which some like to sport these days. (along with their huge SUV's which never go futher off-road than the supermarket car park.....)
Uncertain whether latent sour grapes, angst or isolation explains this view. It's wide of the mark. Though there was no shortage "gizmos" for amateurs 10-15 years ago, Canon and Nikon pro level bodies and lenses weren't targeted at punters. Few of them could afford the stuff. Something like the F5 or late run EOS pro bodies carried features that made them adaptable to the owners' needs, not least being AF and metering/flash systems suited to the spontaneity of sports/nature/PJ shooting.
al
No need for rudeness. I have, and enjoy using regularly, all the photo equipment I need for my requirements (which doesn't involve posing or impressing anyone). (For that matter, I also have the cars which I need and enjoy, and actually have no interest in them beyond reliability and fitness for purpose). I don't know what you mean by isolation...I've just sent out invitations for 284 guests for my wedding later in the year. Life's good, and, come to that, I wonder why I'm bothering being here... I thought it was to have friendly (and perhaps provocative) discussions with similar open-minded analog enthusiasts.
You were slinging around a pretty big tar brush for someone so supposedly so "friendly."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?