dThe time period you describe, when you bought so many digital cameras, the basic technology was in a heavy development period. But everything that's done at present is simple nuance. Frankly, there's no reason to buy the latest camera unless you just want to spend money.
And you can buy a 10-year-old digital camera with a couple of lenses for a couple of hundred dollars and use a 10 or 15-year-old laptop to mess with the photos using GIMP or a cheaper (but not free) photo editor like Affinity.
Digital is as expensive as you make it.
Film is as expensive as the amount you use.
A 10 year old digital camera is a rare beast indeed. once the electronics start to falter who is going to repair them with few spares available.
I have a couple of over 10-year old DSLRs that are still going strong, and batteries are still available. I have never had a relatively high-end digital camera fail or go bad on me. They have never been into the shop except for sensor cleaning.A 10 year old digital camera is a rare beast indeed. once the electronics start to falter who is going to repair them with few spares available. Or batteries start to fail with new ones (from Nikon or even 3rd party) costing anything between £35- £75 then the price of technology rears it's not so pretty head.
Yes my F100 or F80 will die 'cos they are battery dependant. (no spare parts) My Nikon F2a and my FT3 are purely mechanical and will probably be repairable a lot longer than any of todays current digital's. as good as they are Even my Minoltas which are battery dependant each take 2 x 1.5v silver oxide which are used for more than cameras, so will be available for quite a while. Also low tech and very durable
I forecast that electric cars are on the same trajectory too. How long will they last and what cost to replace them. Gone are the days of home maintenance you almost need a degree in electronics to work on one. My small petrol hatchback is now in it's 11th year having done over 90,000 miles with almost perfect reliability. My next door neighbour has a car provided by his employer with barely 9000miles and it has been into the agency for over the half the time he has had it. Oh yes, it is a Tesla which cost over 21/2 times what I paid for mine when new 11 years ago.
They say the second best day of boat ownership is the day you buy the boat, the best day is the day you sell the boat. The few people who I've known that have owned boats makes me believe that is true.
Good luck finding a 10 year old digital with failing electronic parts, where the failure isn't due to abuse. And batteries for any Nikon, Minolta/Sony, or Canon digital from the past 20 years are cheap and easy to get - one battery will cost about the same as a roll of Ektachrome.
Even if it wasn't the case, it still won't matter. Almost no one needs any photographic needs greater than what can be provided by a cell phone.
Except I use my phone to speak to people not take pictures! I want quality not poor quantity!
You use a phone to make calls? How quaint.
Eastman Business park is basically the parts of "Kodak Park" that eastman is no longer using. some part are rented out to contractors who supply Kodak, and much is rented to totaly unrealated firms. One I keep watching is LiCycle { https://li-cycle.com/ } of Kingston Ontario who is working on a plant at Eastman Park to extract Lithium battery materials from "Black Mater" that they extract by grinding up dead Lithium batteries. So eastman Business park is really an embeded real estate company."Eastman Business Park segment is not a reportable segment and is excluded from the table above."
They still have interests in the land around their location. That is known as the Eastman Business Park, and they run that business separately, with separate income, expenses and financial statements.
Their coating business, including film, and their chemistry business, including motion picture film chemistry, as well as their business related to manufacture of polyester based materials - including Estar film base - is all included in the Advanced Materials and Chemicals numbers. So the businesses that are related to film and coating are between 1/6 and 1/7 of their business (based on gross revenue).
Included in that are all sorts of interesting things that are related to their coating expertise and their very specialized coating equipment. As an example, they coat a lot a lot of flexible circuit boards.
And of course, with still film, they have almost no marketing or distribution costs. They make it, and then sell it to one customer at wholesale. Kodak Alaris has the substantial cost burden of marketing and distributing still film worldwide.
Before the bankruptcy, the vast majority of Eastman Kodak (and its subsidiaries)'s costs relating to still film, including its staff costs, were related to marketing and distribution. As a result of the bankruptcy settlement, all of those costs were transferred to Kodak Alaris.
Does Eastman drop ship to final sellers like B and H? I can't imagine that they ship everything to Great Britain for Alaris to re-ship.
A 10 year old digital camera is a rare beast indeed. once the electronics start to falter who is going to repair them with few spares available. Or batteries start to fail with new ones (from Nikon or even 3rd party) costing anything between £35- £75 then the price of technology rears it's not so pretty head.
Yes my F100 or F80 will die 'cos they are battery dependant. (no spare parts) My Nikon F2a and my FT3 are purely mechanical and will probably be repairable a lot longer than any of todays current digital's. as good as they are Even my Minoltas which are battery dependant each take 2 x 1.5v silver oxide which are used for more than cameras, so will be available for quite a while. Also low tech and very durable
I forecast that electric cars are on the same trajectory too. How long will they last and what cost to replace them. Gone are the days of home maintenance you almost need a degree in electronics to work on one. My small petrol hatchback is now in it's 11th year having done over 90,000 miles with almost perfect reliability. My next door neighbour has a car provided by his employer with barely 9000miles and it has been into the agency for over the half the time he has had it. Oh yes, it is a Tesla which cost over 21/2 times what I paid for mine when new 11 years ago.
Does Eastman drop ship to final sellers like B and H? I can't imagine that they ship everything to Great Britain for Alaris to re-ship.
Except I use my phone to speak to people not take pictures! I want quality not poor quantity!
The trailer below is for a movie shot using an iphone 5s.
If someone can't take a "quality" photo using a phone, it may have more to do with attitude than the phone.
I suggest it’s more to do with expectation than attitude. The quality that’s acceptable in a budget movie is rather less than you’d expect for a 20x16 still print hung on the wall.
That’s not to deny that smartphones are remarkable, especially in eliminating focus and exposure errors and camera shake, and dealing with colour balance. With all that help one should be able to get a decent shot, but there are still plenty of limitations.
The expense of shooting film
The difference is that films are objects. You have something you can touch. Work on it is payed, the object is still there. The original camera negative of a major film production, say of 100 minutes run time, is not less than 9,000 feet of stock, net. About 20 kilogram, five cans, cores, tape, bags.
Exactly. So if their expectation of quality is modest, they’ll be satisfied with their phones. Else not.The fraction of people who need or want a 20x16 still print on the wall is extremely small. A significant % of photographers probably don’t do that. A smartphone is a compact, easy to use, reliable, multipurpose tool that more than meets the needs/wants of the vast majority of people.
In terms of technical quality, the equipment sets the limit. In terms of artistic expression within that constraint, it’s 100% the photographer.Besides, it’s the photographer, not the camera, right?
If you are convinced of that and those are important considerations, you presumably prefer digital. But I imagine the reason for this thread was to highlight the cost of film for those of us who wish to stick with it, not to start another film vs digital row.In other words, film is a lot more expensive and takes up a lot more space.
I suggest it’s more to do with expectation than attitude. The quality that’s acceptable in a budget movie is rather less than you’d expect for a 20x16 still print hung on the wall.
So if their expectation of quality is modest, they’ll be satisfied with their phones.
In terms of technical quality, the equipment sets the limit. In terms of artistic expression within that constraint, it’s 100% the photographer.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. I have owned a Tesla since 2015 and it has been - by far - the most reliable, trouble free vehicle I have ever owned. You're just speaking from a place of suspicion and hate for change, not bothering with facts.
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?