Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I don't resent film. I've shot film for 50 years. I shoot digital professionally, and mostly medium format and 4x5 for fun. Still, it's pretty hard to deny that film is dying. Sure, they still make buggy whips, but do you own one?
zumbido
-
Gumby
Veteran
Does a riding crop count?
zumbido
-
Only if it ever leaves the bedroom. Okay, the house.
hipsterdufus
Photographer?
RFF just got sexy!
zumbido
-
Chriscrawfordphoto
Real Men Shoot Film.
I would if I owned horses. Here in Indiana, there is a huge Amish community and they ride horse-drawn carriages, or they ride horses to get places. Also there are three companies operating horse-carriage tours of downtown Fort Wayne. Out in New Mexico there were no Amish, but a lot of people owned horses and rode them in barrel races and other equine sports. They used the riding crops mentioned by someone earlier. One of my clients out there sells tack, including buggy whips and riding crops too and they sell pretty well.
Lots of obscure things are still made that have smaller markets than the hobbyist and artist film market. Kodak and Fuji probably will leave film making in the next few years, but there are smaller companies that can produce film in small quantities profitably, just as there are small companies making obscure art supplies like egg-tempera paint (the stuff used in fresco painting. Who on earth does THAT? Someone must, because there are a couple of companies making the paint.
Last edited:
robbeiflex
Well-known
Kodak's problems are larger than declining film sales: "For the quarter, Consumer Digital Imaging Group's revenue were $731 million, a decrease of 40%."
This is not about film vs. digital, death of film, etc. It's about a company that is in decline, and unfortunately it's the one that provides TMax, Tri-X, and M9 sensors. If you read the whole transcript you'll see that Kodak has serious issues to deal with across their whole business, but they tell us: "Our cash balance provides us with the ability to continue to make the investments necessary to complete our transformation."
Can we believe them? I'll keep my judgement to my self thanks. I do financial analysis often enough at work and don't feel like doing more in my spare time. However, if you want to read the whole transcript and make your own judgement instead of arguing over quotes taken out of context, then you'll find it here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/248...010-earnings-call-transcript?source=thestreet
Cheers,
Rob
PS: Above quotes are from the linked page.
This is not about film vs. digital, death of film, etc. It's about a company that is in decline, and unfortunately it's the one that provides TMax, Tri-X, and M9 sensors. If you read the whole transcript you'll see that Kodak has serious issues to deal with across their whole business, but they tell us: "Our cash balance provides us with the ability to continue to make the investments necessary to complete our transformation."
Can we believe them? I'll keep my judgement to my self thanks. I do financial analysis often enough at work and don't feel like doing more in my spare time. However, if you want to read the whole transcript and make your own judgement instead of arguing over quotes taken out of context, then you'll find it here:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/248...010-earnings-call-transcript?source=thestreet
Cheers,
Rob
PS: Above quotes are from the linked page.
Fawley
Well-known
I am in total agreement on this point. Furthermore, even if Kodak were to get out of the film business entirely, I would be very surprised if the well known brands like Tmax etc were not simply sold to another manufacturer. The Tmax and TriX names will be around for a long time to come.
antiquark
Derek Ross
antiquark
Derek Ross
I can see it now... "Introducing the new Casio Tri-X, the easy to use point-and-shoot! Its amazing art filters will give your digital snapshots that old-fashioned black-and-white look!"
Last edited:
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Poor Kodak. Film is the only product (consumer or pro) that Kodak offers that has any real value. It's the only product that has a user base that actually falls over itself to acquire it. It's the only product that Kodak makes that when they discontinue a product, users actually go into mourning. There is so much value in the phrase 'Kodak film', and for years they treated it like it was a pox on the company.
I shoot both film and digital, and I will never understand how anyone who has ever shot a roll of Tri-X and souped it in D-76 or some other solvent developer could ever walk away from that kind of magic--and then to pray and long for its demise (?!). That's proof that pure evil does exist in this world.
edit: I offer this as proof of magic.
/
I shoot both film and digital, and I will never understand how anyone who has ever shot a roll of Tri-X and souped it in D-76 or some other solvent developer could ever walk away from that kind of magic--and then to pray and long for its demise (?!). That's proof that pure evil does exist in this world.
edit: I offer this as proof of magic.
/
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
I would. In fact I'd be astonished. Talk to any emulsion/coating specialist and they'll tell you that it's virtually impossible to replicate an emulsion, even inside the company, if you change coating lines. Normally, they take this opportunity to incorporate improvements (such as on-line hardening so that Tri-X didn't reticulate any more). Of course, sometimes they incorporate only 'improvements' (note quotation marks).
Besides, who would buy the 'Tri-X' name? Ilford, when they already have a competing product? Foma, whose films have their own 'look'? Conceivably Gevaert, but I doubt it. And I don't think anyone who is capable of making itwould want the name T-Max.
Cheers,
R.
bigeye
Well-known
Ironically, film still is the profitable part of KODAK.
bigeye
Well-known
Isn't that the place of "art & craft", when commercial photographers and the snaps shooters are stripped away?
How often are people impressed when you say that a picture is from film, without any photoshopping?
The highest value product of any art or craft is hand-made and not machine-made. (If you doubt, just add, "and he did that on film!" to a description of any great picture.)
.
Last edited:
bigeye
Well-known
JeffL
Well-known
I read somewhere ( APUG I think ) that if the movie industry shot film at 40 or 48 frames a second instead of the 24 fps, the quality is just stunning - but more expensive.
italy74
Well-known
As far as I know photographic film is just a "tidbit" of film produced for movie industry, every roll is a fraction second of a 2 h and more pizza roll. I think until Kodak will be producing film for movie industry, we're relatively safe. When Hollywood will move totally to digital, well, that is another story.
btw I agree with bigeye when stating how more impressed are people when they realize you didn't pp a great film picture! I know several people here who have never seen a film camera!
btw I agree with bigeye when stating how more impressed are people when they realize you didn't pp a great film picture! I know several people here who have never seen a film camera!