Kodak: Most photographers prefer film

[sepiareverb]

I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? 😉

Chris

I can't even read the discs I made ten years ago, carefully backing up all my files so they wouldn't be lost when I upgraded to a new machine.

 

[Socke]

I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? 😉

Chris

No problem, I'll send you a 5,25" HD diskdrive if you cover shipping. Still have 5 in the cellar 🙂

As to the 150 year old photos, where would you get that material today? I expect a Fuji Fontier print to last as long as another Fuji Fontier print. Scanned negs or direct digital can't make any difference there.

 

[photogdave]

This survey is meaningless. "Almost 3000" photogaphers participated. Just a drop in the bucket I'm afraid.

 

[landsknechte]

I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? 😉

Chris

That's exactly what I mean about it not being done properly.

 

[amateriat]

Corollary: most of Canon's film SLR lineup is still in production. ('Course, I don't shoot with SLRs much anymore, so...)

("Garçon, another brick of E200 please!")


- Barrett

 

[mllanos1111]

Can't understand that. My general dissapointment about digital is B&W.
Yes, you can have fantastic results in post-processing, but how will it look
on paper? I don't have a chance to see huge prints in photo galleries here...
also, classic B&W print can last 100 years, how much digital prints will live?
Time will show ...

With a digital enlarger you can print true B&W prints on fiber base paper. I had this done recently from a digital file and processed traditionally on fiber paper and received an honorable mention at the San Diego County fair.
It looks fantastic, but not sure a digital file has that last bit of depth that good B&W film has.

 

[350D_user]

As to the 150 year old photos, where would you get that material today?

Dig up the recipe, substituting chemicals as and where applicable...
http://www.alternativephotography.com/

 

[Toby]

My 350D can be set to behave exactly the same way. Stick it into manual mode, switch the AF off, away you go.

At the end of the day though, inkjet prints fade. Yep, film photos fade as well, but at a slower rate, if at all.

I'm afraid that's not true anymore. The latest generation of pigment inkjet printers are all rated with greater longevity than chemical prints. My HP b9180 has a archival rating of 200 years if you use the right paper.

 

[iml]

Well, nobody's looked at a 200 year old inkjet print but ink technology is certainly improving all the time. The right printer, with the right inks and paper, can certainly produce very long-lasting prints, particularly if they are under glass.

I scan my negs and print them digitally, I dont have room to wet print. The results are excellent. If they start to fade after my death I can't say I'm too bothered 🙂

Ian

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? 😉

Chris

Send it to me. I have a 5.25" 1.2M drive, which can read (but not write) 360K disks 😀

In earnest: archiving digital pictures so that no periodic maintenance and transfer to a newer medium is not required really is very difficult. If you have the time, money and discipline, you can certainly keep all your digital files intact almost indefinitely. Or you can contract a service provider to do it for you, in which case you only need money. But it requires either a fairly large amount of effort or a fairly large sum of money over the years...

Negatives, prints and slides will rot too, but properly storaged they will easily last for a lifetime. Is that major selling point of film cameras? Of course not, since most people do not really plan things so well. Digital cameras also have advantages that for most consumers and even for most amateur photographers are much more important than problems with archiving. On the other hand film will not die any time soon, but it will be marginalized.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

Corollary: most of Canon's film SLR lineup is still in production. ('Course, I don't shoot with SLRs much anymore, so...)
- Barrett

Are you sure that they are actually still in production or are the just selling old stocks? Last I heard even the Nikon F6 was not really being produced any more, even if you can still buy one from most pro Nikon retailers.

 

[lushd]

Call me an old cynic but there is a grand tradition in UK politics. A minister is in trouble. The Prime Minister issues a statement saying "Minister so and so enjoys my full support and backing". Within a week said minister is clearing the desk and looking for a new job.

Kodak have put out statements about being committed to stuff previously and then dumped the products weeks later. Didn't they do this for some of their (or was it all?) the Kodak wet B+W printing papers?

 

[Al Patterson]

I can easily find 150 year old photos and negatives that are still quite viable.
Now where can I read this 20 year old 5.25" 360K floppy disk? 😉

Chris

Hey Chris, I have a box of 8'' floppies written in CP/M format. I think that's where my resume is...

I really wonder about the long term ability to read various digital media even 20 years from now.

 

[keithwms]

At first I was totally shocked to hear that so many "professionals" prefer digital for b&w....

But then I remembered that digital b&w has one nifty feature: you can convert to b&w in an infinite number of ways using channel mixer and such. So there is a lot of flexibility. Admittedly, a lot of people really like that. Maybe that's why the number is so surprisingly high.

For me, channel mixing isn't nearly fun enough to give up the tonality and range of b&w film. I mean, I'd do digital b&w if it weren't for...

acros,
fp4+,
hp5+,
delta 3200,
the Rollei IR films,
agfa scala...
fuji fp100b...
and last but certainly not least type 55 polaroid...

oh and tonable output on real matte fiber paper....

 

[sepiareverb]

Back to the same old arguments. We have to agree to disagree.

 

[dreilly]

Well, even if Kodak is smoking crack (I should know, I'm down wind of corporate hq in Rochester) I welcome the news. I'm not entirely distrustful of the results--most photographers I talk to talk about film in wistful terms (oh, the colors of chromes) and I get the sense that they've sacrificed some quality factors because of efficiency gains and industry standards changing. And anyway, I'm not so sure 3000 is a really bad N for a survey of European professional photographers, if there was some attempt at creating a representative pool.

Whatever, Kodak, keep making film and I know lots of folks, pro or not, who will be happy!

 

[Bryce]

I thought Kodak was phasing film out? Here it says that it will be available from Kodak for a long time to come...
I'd say no matter what, Kodak's management is on crack. Why tell us all that film products will be discontinued, then this?
I feel a strong urge to continue to buy Ilford products.

 

[40oz]

I thought Kodak was phasing film out? Here it says that it will be available from Kodak for a long time to come...
I'd say no matter what, Kodak's management is on crack. Why tell us all that film products will be discontinued, then this?
I feel a strong urge to continue to buy Ilford products.

why is anyone on crack because you thought something that wasn't true? Who told you all Kodak film products were going to be discontinued? When did "they" say this? Got a link?

I think someone around here might be on crack, but I'm not sure it is the folks at Kodak 🙂

 

[iml]

This is what the board of Kodak were discussing in February this year:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article1343516.ece

There is no doubt Kodak have been sending mixed messages about their film business for a while now.

Ian

 

[40oz]

I didn't see anywhere in that link discussion of discontinuing even a single film.

Can we please drop the juvenile martyr act with Kodak? They do what they do. If Ilford isn't good enough to use on it's own merits, at least be willing to say so. Suggesting that you only buy from Ilford because you don't trust Kodak unfairly denigrates Ilford and their fine products, and sounds ridiculous to anyone capable of reason.

Trying to turn this public statement by Kodak in support of their film business into a reason to avoid Kodak products is reaching pretty far, and anyone with a shred of logic can see how silly such people are.