Nh3
Well-known
I'm speaking of a purely digital work of art, a masterpiece.
Kodak and film
- Thread starter sjw617
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 93
- Views 8K
david.elliott
Well-known
Creativity does not always yield masterpieces.
A work can be the product of creative thought and action without being a masterpiece. And that work can be created via either analog or digital methods.
One man's masterpiece might be another man's plain red line on a canvas. I dont think it is particularly useful to say 'point me to a digital masterpiece.' I disagree more with your premise that creativity cannot be expressed through digital means.
Y
Yvette
Guest
Do you think the "masterpieces" you refer to were considered masterpieces when they were painted?
slm
Formerly nextreme
Oil vs. Aquarelle ? Pencil vs. Ink ? Toyota vs. Land Rover ?
I like film, its fun to work with, it's not always easy, I have to think, I won't be able to erase the mistake. I like digital too though !
After having watched the video posted by another member (mabelsound ?) on developing C41 at home, I'm committed to trying it this year, and even thinking about wet printing color (anyone have any how to links on the process?), so I hope color film will be around for a long time.
Cheers.
I like film, its fun to work with, it's not always easy, I have to think, I won't be able to erase the mistake. I like digital too though !
After having watched the video posted by another member (mabelsound ?) on developing C41 at home, I'm committed to trying it this year, and even thinking about wet printing color (anyone have any how to links on the process?), so I hope color film will be around for a long time.
Cheers.
Nh3
Well-known
I think some of the top photographers of today would agree with me and that is not something I take for granted.
If film is good enough for Salgado, Alex Webb, Kudelka, Gibson, Erwitt and almost all the current luminaries of photography, then its good enough for a humble amateur like me.
With that I rest my case.
If film is good enough for Salgado, Alex Webb, Kudelka, Gibson, Erwitt and almost all the current luminaries of photography, then its good enough for a humble amateur like me.
With that I rest my case.
slm
Formerly nextreme
Well, I don't think we can argue one method produces art while the other doesn't. But I do believe a distinction should be made between images produced digitally or traditionally. I *think* art galleries often point out that fact (silver gelatin print vs. giclee ?).
david.elliott
Well-known
Tuolumne
Veteran
I am really enjoying just reading this and not participating. For once!
/T
/T
40oz
...
at the risk of joining the debate, I think what nh3 has stated is fine. He has put no words into anyone's mouth. He merely pointed out that there are plenty of respected artists/journalists using film. Obviously we can deduce that these people use film because it works for them. NH3 stated film works for him, so obviously he is in fair company.
It would be putting words into people's mouths to assume these artists and journalists would prefer digital cameras. Or that they use film for some reason other than personal preference.
Can Sebastiao Salgado really not afford a digital P&S? Is that the real reason he uses film? Or is it remotely possible that he uses film for the same reason nh3 and I prefer it? How is my preference for film invalidated simply because I have not been able to sit Selgado down and get a suitable quote for sharing on this forum?
To keep this on topic, Kodak in the 3rd quarter of 2008 finally showed a profit from their consumer digital imaging division. This is a good thing. They showed a decline in earnings for other divisions, due to a soft economy, among other reasons. Is it just me or would one expect a decline in earnings across the board for most companies given the current economic climate?
If a company like Kodak, that sees more profits from their film division than any other aspect of their business, says film is here for the duration, what outsider could possibly dispute that statement without being a fool?
It would be putting words into people's mouths to assume these artists and journalists would prefer digital cameras. Or that they use film for some reason other than personal preference.
Can Sebastiao Salgado really not afford a digital P&S? Is that the real reason he uses film? Or is it remotely possible that he uses film for the same reason nh3 and I prefer it? How is my preference for film invalidated simply because I have not been able to sit Selgado down and get a suitable quote for sharing on this forum?
To keep this on topic, Kodak in the 3rd quarter of 2008 finally showed a profit from their consumer digital imaging division. This is a good thing. They showed a decline in earnings for other divisions, due to a soft economy, among other reasons. Is it just me or would one expect a decline in earnings across the board for most companies given the current economic climate?
If a company like Kodak, that sees more profits from their film division than any other aspect of their business, says film is here for the duration, what outsider could possibly dispute that statement without being a fool?
Y
Yvette
Guest
According to the report, if I read it correctly, they saw more profit from their film devision because they invested nothing in it, while they were investing heavily in digital. It doesn't seem to me a good thing if a company is no longer investing in a division.
Bob Michaels
nobody special
Can we have a special flag to indicate a thread is just yet another "film vs. digital" debate?
dof
Fiat Lux
The article mentions that they invested 11 million dollars in research and development in the group that oversees film production. How much of that was related to film per-se is less clear, however we can assume that some of this had to have been related to the development of Ektar 100 and the recently introduced update to TMAX 400.
-J.
"But for the company's third quarter of 2008, ending Sept. 30, its film, photofinishing and entertainment group spent $11 million on research and development, as well as $93 million on operating that group."
J J Kapsberger
Well-known
40oz
...
They spent five times the money on digital R&D as film R&D, yet made 3 times the profit on film. Tell me again what a "good thing" is?
The facts are in the posted article, as well as the freely available SEC filing. Why is it so hard to get people to base their opinions and statements on the facts rather than assumptions and conjecture?
Quote taken from the 4th paragraph of the article: "the company continues to invest in new lines of films and the revamping of others." How does this get interpreted as they are no longer investing in a division? Boggles the mind.
To me, the article was obviously written by someone trying to say film is disappearing and that Kodak was messing up big time. I'm not sure where the motivation comes from, but I bet the author just spent too much money on a new digital camera. Seems kind of ignorant to be knocking the company that pays the bills in town, not to mention the company that made the sensor in the reporter's new digicam.
Al Kaplan
Veteran
As a photographer about the only "investment" I've made in equipment over the last few years was a new air conditioner for the darkroom (under $100), a couple of bulbs for the enlarger and safelights, and a new paper cutter. The old air conditioner and paper cutter had been in use or at least 25 years, and the bulbs should really be considered as consumables because they don't get listed on any depreciation schedule. Kodak's lack of investment might simply reflect adding a second or third shift at some production facilities, and the expenditure would be allocated to labor costs rather than investments.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
I hope that this does not make me a fool. I tend to ask the question, 'cui bono'? Why would Kodak make this announcement? Why now?
Well, for one thing, they need to generate some noise around their company, they are announcing new digital cameras at CES today. Second, they just announced they are closing all their film processing plants in North Carolina and throwing everyone out of work. Third, they also announced they were suspending their 2009 forecast, which they had previously made, on account of the economy. Was I a fool to notice those things? Well, foolish me.
This is the operative statement in the article:
This is accounting. Kodak is saying that they can get more money out of film if they stop investing in infrastructure and simply run the machines until they fall apart, instead of completely depreciating them to zero and replacing them. I'm not talking about investments in R&D, I'm talking about replacing broken equipment and building new infrastructure, physical plant. They're not going to. They're going to run it until the wheels fall off. They just said so.
Now, given that they have made the decision to keep running the machines, they need to make sure that the market, which they know is declining on the order of 30% year-on-year, doesn't go away entirely while they are trying to suck some remaining profit from the equipment and buildings.
That's all this is. Nothing more. Kodak, like any publicly-traded for-profit corporation, has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Not you, not me (unless you are shareholders too).
What it means, to you and me, is that if the market doesn't destroy them utterly in the meantime, we'll have film from Kodak until 2015, then it's goodnight, Gracie.
Well, for one thing, they need to generate some noise around their company, they are announcing new digital cameras at CES today. Second, they just announced they are closing all their film processing plants in North Carolina and throwing everyone out of work. Third, they also announced they were suspending their 2009 forecast, which they had previously made, on account of the economy. Was I a fool to notice those things? Well, foolish me.
This is the operative statement in the article:
This is accounting. Kodak is saying that they can get more money out of film if they stop investing in infrastructure and simply run the machines until they fall apart, instead of completely depreciating them to zero and replacing them. I'm not talking about investments in R&D, I'm talking about replacing broken equipment and building new infrastructure, physical plant. They're not going to. They're going to run it until the wheels fall off. They just said so.
Now, given that they have made the decision to keep running the machines, they need to make sure that the market, which they know is declining on the order of 30% year-on-year, doesn't go away entirely while they are trying to suck some remaining profit from the equipment and buildings.
That's all this is. Nothing more. Kodak, like any publicly-traded for-profit corporation, has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Not you, not me (unless you are shareholders too).
What it means, to you and me, is that if the market doesn't destroy them utterly in the meantime, we'll have film from Kodak until 2015, then it's goodnight, Gracie.
antiquark
Derek Ross
Maybe Kodak is thinking that by 2015, digital will be superior to film in every respect. Then nobody will care if film is gone.
For example, if you apply Moore's law to digital sensors, the sensor of 2015 will have something like 200 Megapixels (assuming the laws of physics are not a limitation.)
One of the reasons people still like film (IMHO) is that it is better than digital in many respects.
EDIT:
Pixel counts seem to double every 5 years:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/SNR-evolution-over-time
Still, that means that an entry level SLR will have 40 MP in 10 years.
For example, if you apply Moore's law to digital sensors, the sensor of 2015 will have something like 200 Megapixels (assuming the laws of physics are not a limitation.)
One of the reasons people still like film (IMHO) is that it is better than digital in many respects.
EDIT:
Pixel counts seem to double every 5 years:
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Insights/SNR-evolution-over-time
Still, that means that an entry level SLR will have 40 MP in 10 years.
Last edited:
Nh3
Well-known
Film has not been outsourced yet which means its still cheap enough to make them in US/Japan/Germany. That is one option still left for film companies.
bmattock
Veteran
I agree. It does not change what the average consumer is buying, and it ain't film.
Face it, these people think the crap photos that cell phones make are nifty keen. If they like them, then they're not interested in the technical superiority of film. We are, but we're not the market.
FifthLeaf
amateur
This sounds about right.
CDs:
1. were more convenient to store, carry, and operate than vinyl
2. sounded cleaner
3. you could skip to any track easily
4. etc.
But a small group still clung to vinyl for various reasons:
a. DJs could mix vinyl on a turntable easier
b. some audiophiles preferred the "warmer" sound
c. some collectors liked buying vinyl singles (there's a whole indie industry of selling 7")
d. or whatever.
The parallels with film are striking.
Digital:
1. is more convenient to store, carry and operate (memory cards, ultra compacts, no film loading)
2. produces cleaner images
3. you can skip around and immediately view any picture
4. etc.
But there's a group that still clings to film for various reasons:
a. some photographers get the results they want with film much more easily
b. others prefer the tonality and grain of film
c. some collectors/users prefer older style cameras.
d. or whatever
So it makes sense that film will come close to dying, but Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji will keep a small stream of products out. And if not, ADOX probably will. Many indie record stores have disappeared, but you can still buy online. So when your local pro shop doesn't have film in stock, you will still be able to buy online (depending on your country, of course).