edodo
Well-known
I have saw digital enlargers : digital meets analogue darkroom. still expensive
Matthew55000
6x7 FTW
I agree. Bryce can you back up that statement of yours - or is the crack maybe more one of your own vices?40oz said: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
Well-known
40oz said:
I didn't suggest it did.
But it does say,
"[Antonio Perez, Kodak CEO] declined to comment about a possible sale or spin-off of the film business, but a source close to the company said that the idea had been discussed by Kodak board members and senior executives and was well within the realms of possibility."
Not necessarily discontinuing film, but certainly less committed to making it themselves than their latest marketing suggests.
I use Tri-X as my primary film of choice (and Xtol as my primary developer) and will continue to do so as long as it (and I) exists, but there's no doubt at all that over the last couple of years Kodak management have not given a clear indication of what their strategy is for their film business. Sometimes they have implied it is likely to be sold off, at others times they say they have no such plans. I wouldn't bet either way on what they will do in the next few years. I would imagine even if they did get out of the film business the rights to Tri-X would be bought by someone else, so I don't worry about it suddenly disappearing. I would be a bit more worried if I relied on one of their less iconic film products.
I'm not dissing this new survey, merely commenting that Kodak aren't consistent. Let's hope they become more consistent.
Ian
Last edited:
Yes, this is how my local lab makes prints these days... Traditional paper & chemicals with the image projected from a digital enlarger head.edodo said:
Michiel Fokkema
Michiel Fokkema
sepiareverb said:
Well, I'm not so surprised. THE main advantage of digital is instant feedback. You can't redo a wedding. It is nice to know a shot is oke the moment you might be able to do it again when it is not.
I've done a few small weddings on film and was always very nervous until I got the prints. With digital I just know it is oke right away and that makes me sleep much better
Cheers,
Michiel Fokkema
Creagerj
Incidental Artist
The issue with backing up professional quality digital images is that every storage medium is built with the consumer in mind. Writable CDs and DVDs are built with considerably less quality than their counterparts that are being used by record companies and movie studios. Even then a scratch on the bottom of the CD could jeopardize your files and a scratch on the top will ruin them. However they are the best bet for long term storage if they are used infrequently. Floppy disk are for transferring files and were never built with pictures in mind. Hard drives will store files for a long time, however they are still magnetic and will eventually degauss. Even if you do have a DVD or CD last for 100 years odds are there will be nothing around to read it. Formats are changing all the time. Even if someone digs up a CD drive it would still be a stroke of luck if anyone knew how to read the script for a JPEG, Bitmap, TIFF, GIFF, or RAW. Unless we evolve beyond the need for sight odds are someone will still be able to figure out what a negative is. Digital storage will eventually fail because there will always be something newer and better that will leave the previous format forgotten. When was the last time you used a floppy disk or listened to an 8-track?
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Creagerj said:
A 20 year old who even knows what an 8-track is is pretty rare these days.
More power to ya!
keithwms
Established
I think many/most of us who shoot film are not averse to digital archiving and output and do it alongside traditional methods. Likewise digital users will, in time, gain interest in traditional output methods.
Look, film covers both bases- traditional and digital output- very well. Some of my film output goes to pigment ink, some to traditional b&w output, some to digital contact prints, some to lightjet, some to RA4, some to ciba... some to polaroid transfer or emulsion lift... whatever works for the image.
Of course, many of the traditional output methods can now be done with digital files as well, particularly in the case of b&w. My experience with that is quite limited but I can attest that the workflow is very flexible, as it literally combines the best of both worlds.
So frankly, I think a discussion about what is archival and what is superior is entirely moot. And hasn't it all been said before? For years and years?!
....oops now I have put myself in a position in which filmies and digies can both pounce on me
Look, film covers both bases- traditional and digital output- very well. Some of my film output goes to pigment ink, some to traditional b&w output, some to digital contact prints, some to lightjet, some to RA4, some to ciba... some to polaroid transfer or emulsion lift... whatever works for the image.
Of course, many of the traditional output methods can now be done with digital files as well, particularly in the case of b&w. My experience with that is quite limited but I can attest that the workflow is very flexible, as it literally combines the best of both worlds.
So frankly, I think a discussion about what is archival and what is superior is entirely moot. And hasn't it all been said before? For years and years?!
....oops now I have put myself in a position in which filmies and digies can both pounce on me
Bryce
Well-known
40oz., Mathew55000-
Quote-
"Kodak has outlined a plan to phase out film operations, while building up digital sales in medical imaging and commercial printing as well as consumer digital lines. Kodak says revenue from digital products will top film revenue for the first time this year. But the transition has been bumpy."
From:
http://wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05nov/mktg_kodak.htm
From a 12 second google search. I could search longer if you'd like...
Sadly it is true- Kodak has been saying for the last several years that they plan to drop their chemical photography line, and if memory serves you used to be able to buy B+W paper from them. So when an article like the one this thread was started in response to, I have to wonder- is the company's business model being changed yet again, or does it mean to continue producing chemical photo products?
As has come up repeatedly, Ilford has committed themselves to what is now the king of alt processes.
Quote-
"Kodak has outlined a plan to phase out film operations, while building up digital sales in medical imaging and commercial printing as well as consumer digital lines. Kodak says revenue from digital products will top film revenue for the first time this year. But the transition has been bumpy."
From:
http://wsjclassroomedition.com/archive/05nov/mktg_kodak.htm
From a 12 second google search. I could search longer if you'd like...
Sadly it is true- Kodak has been saying for the last several years that they plan to drop their chemical photography line, and if memory serves you used to be able to buy B+W paper from them. So when an article like the one this thread was started in response to, I have to wonder- is the company's business model being changed yet again, or does it mean to continue producing chemical photo products?
As has come up repeatedly, Ilford has committed themselves to what is now the king of alt processes.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Actually, when the wind is right I can smell a whiff of acetic acid ... I love the smell of stop bath in the morning.Michael I. said:
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
rovnguy said:
Whaaaaat? You think if sales decline they will just say, "Oh well"??? Have you ever seen electronics drop in price to increase sales? Me neither.
Bryce said:
Where did they say that? That's one of those internet "facts" that just isn't so. My bet is that Canon started the rumour.
Bryce said:
Well, again ... they DIDN'T say that. But in your logic I suppose buying Ilford film send a signal to Kodak that you want Kodak to keep producing film. Do you think Ilford will take over Kodachrome? Portra?
As as to your quote from WSJ ... well, did you see that the plan included (in the same sentence!) "while building up digital sales in medical imaging" ... uh, WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT PLAN? (In case you missed it, Kodak's medical division is now owned by Onex.) And I don't trust the WSJ's interpretation of what was said anyway. That is not to cast aspersions on WSJ, but it is what they (WSJ) say Kodak said, not a transcript of what EK said.
40oz and others have also replied, but let me just say that just because Perez (an outsider, BTW) says something non-committal doesn't mean the sky will fall. There are lots of people in Kodak who have something to say, and Perez is really only interested in the bottom line, the health of the company. That's not to say that he will always make the right decision, but he does not have the entire decision. There is a board of directors and there are lots of people within Kodak who know how to fight.
And if Kodak WERE to spin off the film division, we would still have "Kodak" films.
iml said:
I've never seen that implication.
Earl
NickTrop
Veteran
photogdave said:
Disagree. 3000 photographers would seem to be a statistically valid sample. In fact, it seems a rather largish sample with a small margin of error. Kodak is researching the market, do you think they're not going to survey a big enough sample on which to base business decisions?
My $0.02...
Maybe, at the end of the day, pro photographers prefer to shoot film for the same reason I - as an amateur, do:
1. Because they simply enjoy shooting with film and film cameras more.
2. Because they don't have time to sit in front of a computer wonking with RAW files, correcting colors, or want archiving worries. They wanted to be photographers, and do photography for a living, not be imaging software experts, hardware geeks, and technologists. It's easier and makes more sense to do the "front end" and outsource the "back end" or "post" work to a competent lab they have a relationship with.
3. They know the look - say, of "Portra" or whatever film stock they like/use often, will give them. It's a look they like, are familiar with it, know how the film will react in various lighting situations, and is consistent. There are many such "looks" to choose from. Digital will give them the same (clinical, boring, prosaic, digital-y) look, always, whatever (clinical, boring, prosaic, digital-y)look that one fixed non-interchangeable sensor provides... in every single shot they take with that camera. If they want to have their shot look like Portra VC, they will have to buy (I guess) some Photoshop "plug-in" or something, and manipulate every shot, and we all know the "fake me out" PS plug in Portra still doesn't look the same as the real deal.
Again, when you watch TV, notice that most dramatic television - despite adding greatly to expense, is not shot on digital. It's shot on film... (again, this is TV, bear in mind, not movies). Digital is considered cheap capture. It's used for cheap reality TV crap where they have to shoot thousands of hours of boring people. For images with depth and drama, cinematographers shoot film, probably for the same reason pro photograhers - according to this survey, choose it.
Last edited:
iml
Well-known
Well, it's in the article I linked to above. "[Antonio Perez, Kodak CEO] declined to comment about a possible sale or spin-off of the film business, but a source close to the company said that the idea had been discussed by Kodak board members and senior executives and was well within the realms of possibility."Trius said:
"Sources close to the company" is journalism-speak for an off the record briefing. Some senior Kodak executives, at least, are quite evidently considering such an option.
It's also in just about every story in the business press about Kodak for the last two years, ever since the company announced it was looking to get rid of anything up to two thirds of its traditional production. There is no question at all that Kodak is in difficulties, and Perez has repeatedly said that the primary responsibility of the board is to protect the interest of shareholders (as it is for any company), and that selling off chunks of the business is, therefore, possible.
It would be brave person who would make predictions about what will happen next. But it isn't necessarily going to be what we would all want.
Business Week overview of the company in Oct 2005:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_42/b3955106.htm
I'm not trying to be the voice of doom here, but it is worth being realistic. If we start to see more pro-film marketing from Kodak, maybe that's a sign they are once again committed to it. That would be good, but it hasn't happened yet.
Ian
Last edited:
40oz
...
no offense, man, but some analyst/journalist writing "well within the realm of possibility" is a far cry from "likely to be sold off," or anything like "discontinuing all film products." Those outcomes are so far removed from the presented statements that I don't even know how what to say.
"I'm not trying to be the voice of doom here, but it is worth being realistic. If we start to see more pro-film marketing from Kodak, maybe that's a sign they are once again committed to it. That would be good, but it hasn't happened yet."
What pisses me off are the folks that use any kind of statement at all as a reason to go on the "abandon Kodak" soapbox. Obviously, if one is concerned that Kodak might discontinue their film products, one ought to show their support and buy Kodak film products. If one is not dependent on Kodak for any film-related products, I don't quite know why one would care to post anything at all in a thread related to anything Kodak.
"I'm not trying to be the voice of doom here, but it is worth being realistic. If we start to see more pro-film marketing from Kodak, maybe that's a sign they are once again committed to it. That would be good, but it hasn't happened yet."
What pisses me off are the folks that use any kind of statement at all as a reason to go on the "abandon Kodak" soapbox. Obviously, if one is concerned that Kodak might discontinue their film products, one ought to show their support and buy Kodak film products. If one is not dependent on Kodak for any film-related products, I don't quite know why one would care to post anything at all in a thread related to anything Kodak.
Last edited:
Dr. Strangelove said:
Sendai Nikon is still making the F6 albeit not in large volumes.
http://www.sendai-nikon.com/eizo/index.htm
http://www.sendai-nikon.com/eizo/slr/index.htm
iml
Well-known
It's absolutely clear what Kodak management strategy is, and it does not preclude selling off the film business. Acknowledging this simple reality is not such a big deal. You will not get anyone from Kodak senior management announcing that they are selling off the film business until after the deal is done and contracts are signed, Kodak customers will be the last people to know if and when it happens. But the continuous drip-drip-drip of information in the business press in the last couple of years makes abundantly clear that it is a strong possibility, and nobody in Kodak senior management has made a public statement denying that it will happen. If it happens, nobody knows what availability will be like, or what products will remain in production, so it isn't silly for individuals to make a judgement that perhaps they should get familiar with other products in preparation. As I said above, I'd be surprised if Tri-X didn't continue in production, so I still use it as my main film. I would be a bit less comfortable if I was relying on one of their less successful products.40oz said:
No big deal, no Kodak-bashing, just common sense.
Ian
Last edited:
40oz
...
Hey Ian,
I don't think you and I disagree for the most part.
I would question the assertion that, "It's absolutely clear what Kodak management strategy is," as well as, "But the continuous drip-drip-drip of information in the business press in the last couple of years makes abundantly clear that it [selling off the film business] is a strong possibility." Financial news rarely is anything but advertisement and drip drip drip to generate a little buzz to keep investors happy. The articles are fluff pieces generated with the full cooperation and often at the behest of the subject. There is no way you are going to get an "absolutely clear" picture of a strategy unless said party makes an effort to feed you that information in a direct and unambiguous manner. And even then, as they review quarterly reports, somebody always has a brilliant idea that changes their strategy.
To the people who are all about maximizing their shareholder dollar with the highest possible growth and zero interest in owning a piece of something, Kodak teases by making sure the possibility of selling off a division always gets denied or no-commented. I have no doubt some hothead at a stockholder meeting demanded they dump the film division because "nobody uses it anymore." That constitutes "discussion of selling off the film division." But if you actually look at the statements Kodak has made concerning the money they make off film, it's no loss leader and growth is there. They've actually invested quite a bit in it over the last five years as far as I can tell. Sure, I'll agree that somebody has to be either incredibly boneheaded or privvy to information I'm not if they intend to shuffle the film division off into some third party or just up and stop making film some Monday morning. But I won't agree that scenario is the most likely.
As long as I can remember, people have been predicting the demise of Kodak for this reason or that. As far as I can tell, I'll have to listen to the know-it-alls 'til I die. I'd really think it's past time people just put a sock in it and let it either happen or not without trying to be the person who predicted it. Are there a whole bunch of people out there with "I predicted the dissolution of AGFA!" T-shirts or something making people jeaous enough to print their own "I said Kodak was going to die before it was cool!!!" shirts? Have there been generously attended meetings of the "I called the Ilford split" club that I'm missing out on?
I don't think you and I disagree for the most part.
I would question the assertion that, "It's absolutely clear what Kodak management strategy is," as well as, "But the continuous drip-drip-drip of information in the business press in the last couple of years makes abundantly clear that it [selling off the film business] is a strong possibility." Financial news rarely is anything but advertisement and drip drip drip to generate a little buzz to keep investors happy. The articles are fluff pieces generated with the full cooperation and often at the behest of the subject. There is no way you are going to get an "absolutely clear" picture of a strategy unless said party makes an effort to feed you that information in a direct and unambiguous manner. And even then, as they review quarterly reports, somebody always has a brilliant idea that changes their strategy.
To the people who are all about maximizing their shareholder dollar with the highest possible growth and zero interest in owning a piece of something, Kodak teases by making sure the possibility of selling off a division always gets denied or no-commented. I have no doubt some hothead at a stockholder meeting demanded they dump the film division because "nobody uses it anymore." That constitutes "discussion of selling off the film division." But if you actually look at the statements Kodak has made concerning the money they make off film, it's no loss leader and growth is there. They've actually invested quite a bit in it over the last five years as far as I can tell. Sure, I'll agree that somebody has to be either incredibly boneheaded or privvy to information I'm not if they intend to shuffle the film division off into some third party or just up and stop making film some Monday morning. But I won't agree that scenario is the most likely.
As long as I can remember, people have been predicting the demise of Kodak for this reason or that. As far as I can tell, I'll have to listen to the know-it-alls 'til I die. I'd really think it's past time people just put a sock in it and let it either happen or not without trying to be the person who predicted it. Are there a whole bunch of people out there with "I predicted the dissolution of AGFA!" T-shirts or something making people jeaous enough to print their own "I said Kodak was going to die before it was cool!!!" shirts? Have there been generously attended meetings of the "I called the Ilford split" club that I'm missing out on?
Last edited:
Finder
Veteran
photogdave said:
Statisically, the sample size is valid. You do not have to survey every photographer to have accurate results.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
Even Ilford will stop producing film at some point. I admit it is (probably) a matter of when, not if.
But, the original assertion was that Kodak has stated they will do this, (which they have not) which gets translated into a "sky is falling" routine and folks getting all puffy about supporting Ilford (or Foma, etc., etc.,) to "punish" Kodak. Not that I am defending Kodak or saying anyone should buy their products just to support them.
But this 2nd and 3rd hand stuff, this "business speak for ...", while it may be true and is always worthy of thought, to me it is worth the fleeting pixels on a screen, that's about it.
I've made a part of my career troubleshooting sometimes difficult and complex network issues for a certain other company in Rochester (not to name any names of "a document company"), and one thing I learned is to get first-hand information, to get facts and vet those facts thoroughly. Same applies to this sort of stuff.
And I happily consume film from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford ... and Agfa when I can find it.
But, the original assertion was that Kodak has stated they will do this, (which they have not) which gets translated into a "sky is falling" routine and folks getting all puffy about supporting Ilford (or Foma, etc., etc.,) to "punish" Kodak. Not that I am defending Kodak or saying anyone should buy their products just to support them.
But this 2nd and 3rd hand stuff, this "business speak for ...", while it may be true and is always worthy of thought, to me it is worth the fleeting pixels on a screen, that's about it.
I've made a part of my career troubleshooting sometimes difficult and complex network issues for a certain other company in Rochester (not to name any names of "a document company"), and one thing I learned is to get first-hand information, to get facts and vet those facts thoroughly. Same applies to this sort of stuff.
And I happily consume film from Kodak, Fuji, Ilford ... and Agfa when I can find it.
Bryce
Well-known
Who said anything about punishing Kodak?
I prefer to support Ilford and Fuji because those companies have both stated and made good on their intentions to continue to support chemical photography. That represents self preservationism on my part- not vindictiveness towards a company that can't seem to find its way.
For what it is worth, I use Dektol and KRST still- and will until I can't, which as near as I can tell may be next Thursday or 'til I die.
Kodak has suffered, in my opinion, from indecision more than anything. As was brought up here earlier, the medical imaging division that was to be their new cash machine as of a couple of years ago has now been spun off. Then there is inexpensive consumer digicams- nothing, then all out, then nothing again.
As a company, it needs to find its niches and concentrate on them. If that means no more film products, as indications looked for several years, so be it.
I prefer to support Ilford and Fuji because those companies have both stated and made good on their intentions to continue to support chemical photography. That represents self preservationism on my part- not vindictiveness towards a company that can't seem to find its way.
For what it is worth, I use Dektol and KRST still- and will until I can't, which as near as I can tell may be next Thursday or 'til I die.
Kodak has suffered, in my opinion, from indecision more than anything. As was brought up here earlier, the medical imaging division that was to be their new cash machine as of a couple of years ago has now been spun off. Then there is inexpensive consumer digicams- nothing, then all out, then nothing again.
As a company, it needs to find its niches and concentrate on them. If that means no more film products, as indications looked for several years, so be it.