if kodak dies

mwooten said:
My thoughts are that nothing physical need be moved. No coating machines, nor the folks that apply their alchemy and create the films we love need be moved. The only change would be ownership.
Click to expand...

That would be a best case scenario but there are at least several others. I have seen several Paper Machines dismantled and shipped overseas to foreign buyers when they were obsolete here and uneconomical to run.

Bob
 
claacct said:
Maybe its about time that Tri-X is gone and so is the whole out-dated photography baggage that young photographers are forced to carry today, so we can get on with the business of photography with the means available and save ourselves from the schizophrenia of film and digital.
Click to expand...

That might be a bit harsh but also a possible future reality that is becoming more apparent every year. There is no reason the two mediums can't and should not coexist except for the fact of increasing unprofitably of film production as it now exists. Even if having a choice causes some schizophrenia, that is preferable to having no choices at all.

Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
tunalegs said:
Is anybody concerned that they may stop making oil paints since this fancy acrylic stuff came out?
Click to expand...

Personally I am not concerned that film will disappear altogether but will become hugely expensive to buy and use from fewer and fewer production sources. If all Kodak film were to disappear, as tragic as that might be to some, there are still several other sources for similar film products. What is the big panic? I would worry when the absolute last source of production of film shuts down permanently.

Bob
 
Never shot Kodak b/w-film, because Agfa (APX as Retro), Ilford and Efke serve me fine. But I always sticked to Kodak, when shooting color, so I hope, Kodak will go on. After Fuji just leaving us only with Acros 100 and Neopan 400 for 135, I hope Kodak lasts as a "big one". Everything else would be a huge problem for the analog photography.

I don't know, how to distribute my money, as I want to serve Ilford, which have everything in their product-line, for US, the PHOTOGRAPHERS (classic emulsions in speed range from ISO 50 to 400 and tabular-grain-films from ISO 100 to 3200 as well as chemicals and paper, no company else does that!), but also I wanna shot my beloved APX and Kodak (for color). (Don't care so much about Fuji…)
 
Roger Hicks said:
Possibly, but do you really think there's so little future for digital that all we need is HP5?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

As long as photography is not dead, people should be grateful, because this schizophrenia of film and digital not to mention the dead weight of the times long passed is not helping much.

But sadly the powers that be in photography are the same old mustache Petes and their inability to face the change. While Lytro is promising interactive photographs, we still have people talking about how to expose for shadows and highlights...

The death of Kodak and demise of film is in fact good for photography and its future.
 
claacct said:
[…]

The death of Kodak and demise of film is in fact good for photography and its future.
Click to expand...
This is NOT about film vs. digital, it is about the eventual loss of material many, many photographers are still working with, especially pro-photographers, who know which products they wanna use and there are reasons they don't stick to newest technology, because newest film has its advantages, as well as Tri-X has a special appeal to many people. And the death of company won't help anyone.
 
As Tom said much of the 50's and 60's were captured on Tri-X. But the bulk of the imagery captured during the 20th century was on Kodak film. It has to be some overwhelming percentage since they were and to some extent, still are ubiquitous. The world without Kodak is a completely different history. Yes some other company would have made a similar process but they may not have been so constant and present in our lives and throughout the last 110 years. Revisionist historical musings, of course.

As for Tri-X in 35mm, I'm planning on replacing that with a few thousand feet of frozen XX and modifying my development. Now, film for the Rolleiflex or the 4x5 cameras, that's going to be a different matter all together.

And the death of Kodak will absolutely NOT be good for photography. Why? Artists should not be limited to using only 1 type or size of brush for painting; only 1 specific weight pencil for drawing; or only one medium in any craft. The lack of tools for creative expression can be a step towards homogeneity.

Phil Forrest
 
Last edited:
tunalegs said:
I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks.
Click to expand...

Sure, the trademarks won't disappear. Doesn't mean a thing. Polaroid and Agfa are still around as trademarks.
 
claacct said:
As long as photography is not dead, people should be grateful, because this schizophrenia of film and digital not to mention the dead weight of the times long passed is not helping much.

But sadly the powers that be in photography are the same old mustache Petes and their inability to face the change. While Lytro is promising interactive photographs, we still have people talking about how to expose for shadows and highlights...

The death of Kodak and demise of film is in fact good for photography and its future.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this is complete and utter twaddle. In what way is the disappearance of ANY medium good for ANY art? Does everyone want 'interactive' photographs, whatever they may be? And are you utterly unfamiliar with 'creative tension', or of choosing a medium and working with it? YOU don't like it, and you therefore presume to tell EVERYONE what to do.

Cheers,

R.
 
claacct said:
As long as photography is not dead, people should be grateful, because this schizophrenia of film and digital not to mention the dead weight of the times long passed is not helping much.

But sadly the powers that be in photography are the same old mustache Petes and their inability to face the change. While Lytro is promising interactive photographs, we still have people talking about how to expose for shadows and highlights...

The death of Kodak and demise of film is in fact good for photography and its future.
Click to expand...


You're right. I don't even know why I keep these pens and papers around when I own a computer. How completely daft of me.
 
Every post I've seen from Claacct has been trollish or with a negative tone. Never seems to have a constructive or positive point to make. Either an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, perhaps? The last post I read of his on a X100 and David Alan Harvey thread was deleted by a mod almost immediately due to it's content so maybe if we ignore the troll he will go away :D
 
Last edited:
Ignorance being bliss, I'd guess Kodak has at least 50% of the worldwide film market. If they were to disappear, how likely is it that Fuji, Ilford, whomever could (or even would want to) pick up the slack? And Fuji as the sole purveyor of color film. when they discontinue regularly without any notice? Scarcity causes rising prices, and users giving up because they either can't get film, or can't/won't pay the prices. I think this is the real danger.
 
Google will rescue kodak and kill the analogue side of it to draw us further into their virtual world! Afterall they can't yet control our darkrooms! (and other such tin-foil-hat speculations).
 
Yeah, it's too bad that people can't seem to figure out how to get a digital XPan Hassy going.

That sort of "let film die" way of thought is for folks whom photography consists of very normal 2:3 or 3:4 boxes, with images from moderate wides to telephotos which suit the viewer just fine. Show me a way to capture a 120 degree field of view on a 6x12 digital camera with no color artifacts or any of the other things that happen with super wides like that, and I'll think about not shooting film.

As it stands now, we can't tape a sheet of 4x5 digital negative to the back of an oats cylinder and teach our young ones how photography works at its very basic heart.

Phil Forrest
 
I think, it's best to distribute our money, if we want to keep as much of analog alive as possible. Give some to Ilford, they produce for us (and they aren't in good health…). I'm not so sure about Fuji, my feeling is, they will just cut down everything in a while either way. So buy Kodak. But don't forget to support companies like Efke, who aren't big, but have to offer something!
 
If Kodak goes the way of the Dodo, I'll carry on with Ilford for B&W as I have done for some time, but for colour I'll feel sad...and unless I can start getting on with Fuji, I think it's time to seriously consider a digital SLR, and hunker down with learning how to get the results I want from it.
 
This really sucks, i thought Kodak were heading in a good direction with their color films. The new Portra and Ektar films are fantastic and it would be a real shame to see them go! Ive never really thought much of the Fuji color films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom