Film Not Dead Yet, Says Kodak - Introduces Film SLR

[Leighgion]

You have hair?

Man, I'm missing all the fun.

You want some? My hairdresser just ends up throwing all the stuff away she takes off her clients.

 

[feenej]

My daughter just asked me for a manual film camera for her and two more for her friends for her high-school photography class. The University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee teaches film photography and traditional b&w printing still. I gave a student there a Canonet last year.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Just helped a co-worker get a film camera for her daughter's film based photography course at college here in AZ.
Not a dead thing yet.

 

[Bryce]

Funny thing about the Community College I am attending- they opened a brand new and very expensive building last year. In it is a brand new, purpose made dark room.
At least for the next two quarters, the only class offered that would make use of it at all is an advanced class in which the students are allowed to use the materials of their choice. No classes are offered to introduce a new student to the darkroom that I see looking through the schedule.
In fact, the only direct reference to chemical photography is Polaroid transfers in a 3rd quarter basic class...
Last spring, I asked someone in the photo dept. whether there would be chemical B+W classes offered in the fall. I was told that there was a tentative schedule for one, but that it would be cancelled if not enough students paid to get in. So I'm guessing they didn't.

 

[Pablito]

I teach photography at a small liberal arts college and Photography I, the introductory course, is all film and darkroom based. I plan to keep it that way even in our new building, currently in the design phase. However, I find the Vivitar SLR currently avaiable to be pathetic, and the Nikon FM10 is not much better. I understand they are both Cosina products, and they are certainly both affordable and capable of taking great photographs. However, the failure rate is unacceptable. I'd say one of every 5 or 6 cameras does not even make it thru the semester before needing some sort of warranty repair... and the battery holder on the Vivitar is PLASTIC and falls apart if you tighten it just a simdgeon too tight. Students have wrecked this cheap plastic part, thus making the meter in their cameras useless. Why Kodak chose this camera to brand as their own, if that is what they have done, is beyond me.

 

[FallisPhoto]

Leaving out the run-on sentence, just to address the 'proprietary' comment. 110 film is not proprietary, nor are the cameras which use it. Neither was 126, 127, 620, or even disc.

Okay, 120 and 110. As for 126, pretty much the only people making cameras for it were Kodak and the people they sold licenses to. Same with 620, 616, disc and APS cameras and so on and on. Seems like they do the same thing over and over again, and it never works. Kodak has some of the best research and design people there are, but they have some of the most flat-out stupid marketing people on earth. What do you want to bet that their new film SLR is going to be in some oddball format like 129mm? Wouldn't surprise me.

Kodak introduced them, and one can certainly argue that they did it to try to increase their sales (like any company doesn't do that).

Other than Polaroid, name one.

Yes, I know they made some pretty good stuff (commercial Ektar lenses, for instance, are still among the best you can get), but their other cheaply made shoddy stuff kind of overwhelms it. You have to be careful getting the Ektars too, since they seem to have labled pretty much anything better than mediocre an Ektar at one time or another. They make wonderful film, still, even though there is now only one place on earth that will still develop what I consider their best. I do like Kodak Portra for indoor portraits. Kodachrome is good for both indoor and outdoor portraits. I think Fuji is generally better suited for the outdoor stuff though, because their films seem to lean slightly more toward green, while Kodak seems to lean slightly more toward blue. Sometimes I use T-Max 400 too, if I want grain. If I don't, I go with Efke. Unlike their films, I do not like Kodak's cameras though, and I never have (with the very few exceptions previously noted).

I think their reputation for leaving their customers high and dry kind of overwhelms the good stuff they did, and that reputation is only exceeded by Polaroid. Kodak was denying, publicly, the rumors that they would be dropping their line of film cameras for a year -- until about a week before they did it. One of their company reps lied to my face about that. My parents bought several cameras from them over the years that Kodak no longer makes film for, and so on.

As for the Ektra, yeah, it was pretty good -- if it felt like working that day. Hardly any still do, unless they have been extensively rebuilt. Even when new, they were notoriously unreliable (mostly because of shutters that would jam at the drop of a hat). It was a serious attempt to compete with Leica and Contax, but it was a dismal failure.

I know that we all owe Kodak a big debt, for making photography affordable and practical. Eastman and Kodak are both long dead though and the people who followed them are folks of a different stripe.

 

[gudlagoba]

Just because we can get cheap electronics in North America let's not assume it's the same in places like India.
I visit my family in India once a year and as a previous poster pointed out, electricity is erratic even in the capital city and broadband connections, even when present, are not very reliable. My parents have the computer hooked up to a UPS and voltage stabilizer at all times. There is ADSL at home but sometimes the phone line is so noisy that one has a hard time with voice calls let alone data. Internet connections cannot be taken for granted as we do over here.

India's nominal per capita income is $1089 and at purchasing power parity, $4552 according to wikipedia . If you're on a salary of $100 a month, computer (even a $400 one), digital camera and printer are not high on the priority list. I am not talking about the yuppies and the new rich who are but a very small minority in India.Point and shoot film cameras (not throw away cameras!) are still the most viable way for most of these folks to document their families and events. Film such as Kodak Gold 100 can be obtained from almost any corner store for Rupees 75 (that's what I paid a couple of years ago in Delhi). Film labs are plentiful in most cities and processing cost is reasonable.

I think Kodak has had great success with film in India and film is going to be alive and well in India for many years to come.

 

[NickTrop]

To those who said "digital cheaper than film" etc... and disputed costs, etc. I dunno... I just picked a digicam at random, a popular one, and Googled it...

Nikon D40 Digital SLR Two-Lens Bonus Outfit (18-55/VR 70-300)
Includes FREE Gadget Bag and DVDs $100 Value!
Mfr # SLR1176 Our Stock # SLR1176
Our Price: $1,099.98

Sure, you can buy it cheaper, I'm sure. My take is the average consumer DSLR runs around - say $800 with a kit lens new. But c'mon now, we all know you're not gonna stop there. You might find a Samsung or a used for less, sure. And you can use "Linux + open source" but that's not the typical user.

The typical user is gonna by a D40 or a D70... etc. Which, typically costs around $1000 when all is said and done. Depends, lots of varience, lots of caviates.

Remember, we're talkin China here, and the argument I intitally made was...

You need $1000-ish for a digital camera, "typically". Maybe a little less, but for a new DSLR - a Nikon D40, or whatever, and this is an entry model, it's about a grand.

Since in rural China and India, I doubt there's a "Walmart" where they can get digital prints made, so in addition, they'll need computers, inks, printers etc. Unless they're viewing for the web. That you might already have these things, living in a wealthy Western country, is not material to the argument.

With digital you have to spring for a lot up front...

With film, you "pay as you go"...

This is probably more suitable for people in an emerging economy.

"Perhaps" digital is less expensive in the long run. It depends how much you shoot, and how much you print. For me, mostly a black and white shooter who buys film in 100' spools and rolls and develops his own, the cost differential isn't that big a deal - even over the long run.

But, I do it because I like the look better of film. Don't really like SLRs in general and DSLRs in particular. Don't like to blind people with a series of preflashes before the "big one", don't care for all the unnecessary automation, don't like the futzy buttons and superflous "modes", don't like "zoom" lenses and don't like the "zoom" effect/crop factor - whatever, of using lenses designed for full frame on a smaller digital sensor...

... and just find shooting film a zillion times more fun, and prefer the results. I prefer the look to digital, enjoy developing my own film, and think the results look better. Digital doesn't "suck" but it just doesn't have the same aesthetic as film.

 

[bmattock]

To those who said "digital cheaper than film" etc...

Me being one of them.

But, I do it because I like the look better of film.

And that's what it comes down to - do what you want. I like film too. And digital. I refuse to play games about 'better', 'best', 'superior' or whatever - do what you enjoy doing, I'm all for it.

But if you need to convince yourself that you're doing it because film is cheaper - you can tell that story walking. It wasn't true two years ago, and it sure as hell ain't true now. Every mathematical attempt to 'prove' it comes down to playing funny with the numbers so it comes out in the luddite's favor. Believe what you want, Alice, but I ain't going down that rabbit-hole.

 

[bmattock]

Other than Polaroid, name one.

Sony.

Betamax ring any bells? Elcassette?

HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray sound familiar at all?

Everybody loves to create their own 'standards' and then try to make the market do it their way. Agfa tried with their cassettes, but Kodak's version whomped 'em. And then there is Minox. Oh yes, it goes on and on. Kodak was just the most prolific in the film 'standards' game. But all the enduring cartridge formats - Kodak. Every single one.

By the way - I agree with you about Kodak's technical prowess and marketing idiocy. Big time.

 

[photogdave]

But if you need to convince yourself that you're doing it because film is cheaper - you can tell that story walking. It wasn't true two years ago, and it sure as hell ain't true now. Every mathematical attempt to 'prove' it comes down to playing funny with the numbers so it comes out in the luddite's favor. Believe what you want, Alice, but I ain't going down that rabbit-hole.

I use the exact same argument to explain to most people why I think it's cheaper to shoot film than digital. Most of my cameras were bought and paid for years ago so it's just the cost of film and processing.
However I totally agree with you Bill. It's a useless point to argue about. Let's just all do what we like and do it the best we can.

 

[infrequent]

not sure about china but i do have a bit of perspective on india.

afaik pros are still all film. recently at my cousin sister's marriage, the photog was using a n90 / f5 kit. most of the folks who can't afford cameras would visit a studio where i suppose film would again be dominant. i am guessing most pros are still using film but in the metros this might not be the case.

most teens, young adults etc are switching rapidly to digicams or prefer phone cams. the focus is not on getting digital prints but to exchange / post them online. mind you that most youngsters have access to computers (home, uni) and the net (cyber cafes). lately most are sticking to phone cams. now these are not "high end" sony ericsson models but most don't seem to care at all. they are quite pleased with the noisy / low grade results. i would say this would be the fastest growing demographic.

as for hobbyists, i really doubt much of that actually is worth accounting for. sure folks are interested in photos but not many entertain it to the extent we do here.

i am not sure how much of this is in tune with the market research but the above is just an informal survey of about 200-300 of my relations back in india.

i will be visiting india again in may (another cousin sister getting married) and will prolly shoot with my hexar rf. i am pretty sure i will be the only one apart from the wedding photog.

 

[40oz]

Me being one of them.



And that's what it comes down to - do what you want. I like film too. And digital. I refuse to play games about 'better', 'best', 'superior' or whatever - do what you enjoy doing, I'm all for it.

But if you need to convince yourself that you're doing it because film is cheaper - you can tell that story walking. It wasn't true two years ago, and it sure as hell ain't true now. Every mathematical attempt to 'prove' it comes down to playing funny with the numbers so it comes out in the luddite's favor. Believe what you want, Alice, but I ain't going down that rabbit-hole.

Grow up. There is nothing about using film that makes one a luddite. And I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that this forum for film camera users is taking place via internet connections on a remote server, by people using modern computing hardware all over the world. All us "luddites" are trapped in the past, unlike you, yet somehow are able to communicate with your hyper-advanced self.

I'd agree it's not strictly about cost, but you'd have to be seriously delusional to think shooting digital is somehow always cheaper than shooting film. Keep telling yourself whatever you want to hear, but understand that people might actually know what they are talking about when it comes to THEIR costs and usage.

Digital might be cheaper for you, but tell that story walking :/

 

[keithwms]

Here in the USA I understand colleges aren't even using film in their intro classes and are throwing away the darkroom equipment. I've seen a lot of this stuff on several auction sites.

At least in my class, we are using film cameras (medium and small format), and doing wet darkroom printing etc. The students love it. Many of them already have digitals but want to do traditional b&w.

My class was oversubscribed in 3 minutes of the opening of registration, and I quickly had triple numbers waitlisted; I even had people from other colleges trying to get in. Alas, I can only fit 8 people in the darkroom at once!

This was all a shock to me, I honestly wasn't expecting anybody to sign up for my class (which is even outside of my department) because all I hear on the 'net is gloom and doom and how convenient and inexpensive digital has become. But the students seem to really love the idea of doing something different. Just ask them and you will hear the same thing almost every time. At least at my school!

 

[40oz]

^ That's consistent with my experience.

I've never heard of a secondary school closing a film lab to go digital except in undocumented anecdotal internet stories. Every college photography class I've ever tried to sign up for requires film and is full within minutes of opening of registration. Maybe there is some school out there that has phased out film, but it's hardly representative. Quite the opposite.

 

[Pablito]

At least in my class, we are using film cameras (medium and small format), and doing wet darkroom printing etc. The students love it. Many of them already have digitals but want to do traditional b&w.

My class was oversubscribed in 3 minutes of the opening of registration, and I quickly had triple numbers waitlisted; I even had people from other colleges trying to get in. Alas, I can only fit 8 people in the darkroom at once!

This was all a shock to me, I honestly wasn't expecting anybody to sign up for my class (which is even outside of my department) because all I hear on the 'net is gloom and doom and how convenient and inexpensive digital has become. But the students seem to really love the idea of doing something different. Just ask them and you will hear the same thing almost every time. At least at my school!

yeah, this has been the case for my classes as well. Students are dying to learn to use the darkroom. I have long waiting lists, 50+ requests per semester for a class that can only take 14 because of the size of the darkroom.

 

[Pablito]

^ That's consistent with my experience.

I've never heard of a secondary school closing a film lab to go digital except in undocumented anecdotal internet stories. Every college photography class I've ever tried to sign up for requires film and is full within minutes of opening of registration. Maybe there is some school out there that has phased out film, but it's hardly representative. Quite the opposite.

There are MANY universities and colleges that have phased out film. Some very top schools.

 

[bmattock]

Grow up.

I'm 47, there, 40 ounce. How grown up you want me to be?

There is nothing about using film that makes one a luddite.

No, because then I'd be a luddite, and I'm not.

Being afraid of digital and cursing it and trying to prove to oneself that film is superior, cheaper, or causes less tooth decay - that's being a luddite. If you love film, use it. I do. If you love digital, use it. I do that too. But let's not pretend that film is cheaper than digital. Been there, done that, got the bukkit. Wasn't true then, isn't true now. My VCR (oops, PVR) doesn't flash 12:00. I'm not afraid of technology. People who are, are luddites.

And I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that this forum for film camera users

Nope, it's a forum for rangefinder camera users. You get lost leaving APUG?

is taking place via internet connections on a remote server, by people using modern computing hardware all over the world. All us "luddites" are trapped in the past, unlike you, yet somehow are able to communicate with your hyper-advanced self.

It does amaze me sometimes, but I put it down to Bill Gates and Apple managing to drag at least of a couple coffin-stuffers online by making computers brain-dead easy to use.

I'd agree it's not strictly about cost, but you'd have to be seriously delusional to think shooting digital is somehow always cheaper than shooting film.

Didn't say that. If I buy a one-time use film camera and a cheap digicam, the film camera costs less. But that's not any kind of a real-world example, is it? Nor am I going to replay the math. You won't like mine and I won't like yours, but yours is wrong. Been. There. Film lost. Get over it.

Keep telling yourself whatever you want to hear, but understand that people might actually know what they are talking about when it comes to THEIR costs and usage.

The ones who are skeered of technology will be better off with old bessy, no doubt. But it ain't cheaper.

Digital might be cheaper for you, but tell that story walking :/

I did. Bye.

 

[George S.]

Digital is cheaper in the long run because once you buy the camera, lens printer and memory card, there's not much left to buy. Film and developing is going to get more expensive as the manufacturers and sources to develop shrink.

And the new "consumer" DSLRs with lens are now around $500- $600, not a grand. Seen a few in today's paper. New film cameras are crap. (Not talking about the used market)

 

[photogdave]

Digital is cheaper in the long run because once you buy the camera, lens printer and memory card, there's not much left to buy. Film and developing is going to get more expensive as the manufacturers and sources to develop shrink.

And the new "consumer" DSLRs with lens are now around $500- $600, not a grand. Seen a few in today's paper. New film cameras are crap. (Not talking about the used market)

The only new film cameras you can buy are Bessas, Ikons, Leicas, Canon Eos 1Vs and Nikon F6s. They are not crap.
You can get a Bessa and a lens for the same price as a cheap DSLR and guess which one is the better built, longer lasting camera?
How long is a printer going to last before the heads get so clogged that it's easier to throw it out and replace it than to fix it? Three to four years? How much are you going to spend on ink in that time?
How are you going to back up your images? Cheap DVDs that can corrupt within a couple of years, or more expensive archival gold DVDs that cost about $3 each? Maybe you spend about $200-300 on a decent 500GB hard drive that may or not fail in a couple of years?
Nothing personal here. Pick the method that suits you best but consider all the factors.