Kodak reports increasing sales of prof. film

[dogbunny]

Only 5% is BW.

Cheers, Jan

My next T-shirt: I'm the 5%

 

[mani]

I think it says something that so few people read, comment or track a thread with a title such as this one. Yet, there are hordes who jump on each of a continuing stream of "Kodak is dying" or "film is dead" posts.

Meanwhile, I am just buying and shooting film. If availability becomes a problem, I will not need some internet forum to tell me such.

++1

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Lilserenity]

I think it's probably best if you can, to leverage the strengths of each process as ultimately it should make your work all the better for it. It's good news that hopefully Ektar and Portra will probably be around for a little while yet.

I am still of the thinking I will be acquiring a Nikon D7000 at some point next year but I also still look forward to flitting about with my OM2n and Autocord shooting landscapes on wonderful medium format and that gorgeous viewfinder of the OM. (And maybe the M2, if I can ever afford to get it serviced, quite expensive to say the least compared to work I have done on the OM2's!!)

 

[Argenticien]

From around 1 m 25 s into it: "We've had some people...try some digital and come on back to photography..." -- suggesting digital is not photography! OUCH! 😀 Yes, I realize it's just a guy speaking off the cuff, unrehearsed, and I'm sure he really didn't mean to contrast "digital" and "photography" as if they're mutually exclusive. 😀 But Freudian slip maybe?

Seriously, glad to hear this news about film sales; thanks for the link.


--Dave

 

[jsrockit]

From around 1 m 25 s into it: "We've had some people...try some digital and come on back to photography..." -- suggesting digital is not photography! OUCH! 😀

Yes, well, some ignorant fools really think this... so he may really think this.

 

[MichaelW]

If we apply the "emotion" used by "film is dead" thread openers, this of course means that :gasp: digital is dead. The "film vs. digital" dichotomy dictates it. 😀

Maybe that's why Kodak sold their sensor business?? Getting out before the big digital crash. 😀

 

[Lilserenity]

Yes the whole "proper photography" and "not real photography" thing is a joke. I don't shoot digital myself at the moment but I know lots of people who do and they're good photographers, so such a slur is really insulting, if of course it was intended as a dig.

 

[btgc]

And there are three additional types of these "doom and gloom" posters:
- digital marketing guys: The "film is dead" campaign has been one of the major marketing tricks of the digital camera industry: "You have no choice, you have to turn to digital because film production will be stopped".
Millions of photographers believed it, sold their film gear and turned to digital. This marketing trick has been effective for a long time, no doubt.
- people who have sold all their film gear at big loss, invested thousands of bucks in digital gear, and now try to justify their decision ("I had to do it because film is dead").

I recognize some folks from this breed and tend to agree this is true. Nothing wrong with newcomers to photography jumping on digital bandwagon, but those who had invested in film gear and sold it for nothing to move digital without special reason (like business needs), probably feel fooled.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Yes the whole "proper photography" and "not real photography" thing is a joke. I don't shoot digital myself at the moment but I know lots of people who do and they're good photographers, so such a slur is really insulting, if of course it was intended as a dig.

Well, yes, exactly: a joke, and I think most people take it that way. I quite often refer to 'real Leicas' (i.e. not digital) and 'real Land Rovers' (Series), but that's simply because the old is often perceived as 'more real' than the new. Anyone who wants to feel insulted is welcome, but I doubt many do.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

I quite often refer to 'real Leicas' (i.e. not digital) and 'real Land Rovers' (Series), but that's simply because the old is often perceived as 'more real' than the new.

It's hard to be offended by you when we all know you use a M9 and seem to like it a lot. 😀

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's hard to be offended by you when we all know you use a M9 and seem to like it a lot. 😀

Yeah, but I use real Leicas as well....

Cheers,

R.

 

[v_roma]

Ha! 😀

...

Yeah, but I use real Leicas as well....

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

permanently discourage younger photographers to try film with all their negativity.

I would also discourage younger photographers to try film with all their negativity, because what I would really want them to do is to try film with all their enthusiasm. 😀

 

[claacct]

Yes the whole "proper photography" and "not real photography" thing is a joke.

Its not a joke, in fact its very interesting. Personally I would love to do unreal photography or be an unreal photographer. After all some of the best photographers have tried to bring surrealism to photography, in order to get it beyond its immediate boring realism... HCB was a surrealist of sorts...

People who talk in such terms, real and unreal must be forgiven for their innocence.

 

[shadowfox]

Well, yes, exactly: a joke, and I think most people take it that way. I quite often refer to 'real Leicas' (i.e. not digital) and 'real Land Rovers' (Series), but that's simply because the old is often perceived as 'more real' than the new. Anyone who wants to feel insulted is welcome, but I doubt many do.

Cheers,

R.

Exactly!
Those of us who likes to shoot digital and don't get why people could prefer film, should be secure (as in not easily insulted) in their own preference.

People talk out of their emotion, insults are perceived from both the digital *and* film camp. Nothing to be surprised with.

I came from digital, never left it. But I also love film and want to see it being a choice for future generations. Digital is here to stay, but film needs help to become stable in its new place in photography.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Its not a joke, in fact its very interesting. Personally I would love to do unreal photography or be an unreal photographer. After all some of the best photographers have tried to bring surrealism to photography, in order to get it beyond its immediate boring realism... HCB was a surrealist of sorts...

People who talk in such terms, real and unreal must be forgiven for their innocence.

Well, if you can't try unreal photography, you could at least try improper photography...

Cheers,

R.

 

[Out to Lunch]

I am always amazed how online contributors 'develop' cameras, 'strategise' on marketing approaches and 'interpret' balance sheets. As long as I can find film to shoot with, I'm happy.

 

[Vics]

Wow! As someone who, at 66 years of age has never had a digicam, and who has been hoping to see Tri-X in 135 and 120 hang around at least til I'm "done", that was pretty heady listening! Thanks for posting that.

 

[HHPhoto]

Jan, that's an interesting observation, which I would guess has been true for at least a couple of decades.

Yes, afaik for about 35 years now, quite stable. Stable niche for BW, majority for color.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

I don't necessarily see a film revival as being a darkroom/wet printing resurgence ... a lot of people got away from darkrooms for reasons other than a lack of interesest in photography. Darkrooms are smelly things,

Sorry Keith, that is simply wrong: You only have to use citric acid as stop bath and a neutral fixer. With that you don't have any smell at all.
I am working this way for years.

are are fairly location sensitive and not all people are comfortable with the chemicals they have to use to achieve their result.

Modern chemicals are quite harmless. Avoid longer baths with your fingers in it, that's all.

The hybrid process is clean, very adaptable space and location wise and utiilises a computer ... something most of us own!

And lots of us have to sit in front of the compuetr at job and don't want to continue that in our leisure time. We don't want to be a full-time computer slave.
And scanning, especially with 4000 dpi scanners, is very quality reducing (resolution is much much worse compared to optical printing, grain is enhanced by scanner noise).
And good scanning technique is not trivial.
It is indeed easier, even for beginners, to get quality results with optical printing than with scanning (experience I've made for years in education of younger photographers).

Cheers, Jan