News: Kodak Is Cutting Up to 10,000 More Jobs

Bill,

You can clearly see that the consumer market is still divided by monitoring *bay. Millions of film cameras are trading hands yearly and these buyers are either reselling or hopefully using the cameras, in which case they are buying film. This is a real demand and the market responds to demand forces.

If people buy film, companies will continue making it. If the big manufacturers sell off their plants, other companies will buy them and continue to produce. Compared to the textile industry, the chemical waste produced by film manufacture and development is nothing.

It might become more expensive for users down the line, but film will never die. Have a look at gigabit film gmbh. A small outfit making film. I do not know how big their plant is, but they are doing it.

It is fun to try to predict the future, but let's face it. You cannot.

And to reiterate what has been said in other threads: digital files are not permanent archives like film is. Some photographers I know of in Germany are starting to back up their digital images onto .... yes .... film. Now how ironic is that?

Kevin
 
hth said:
Following the discussion groups, I have seen troubled times for Kodak, Ilford and Agfa. But I cannot recall seeing any problem for Fuji, are they just happily taking over the market?

/Håkan

You're right, I haven't seen any negative news stories about Fuji, either. Could be they have deeper pockets at the moment. Not sure!

Thanks for pointing this out!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Kevin, as far as I know, Gigabit Film is Agfa Copal with a special developer. So it can be gone soon.

And to the manufacturers, Fotoimpex had a hard time to secure delivery from Efke, Foma and Forte, all are very close to the edge.

Then to the film sales, maybe Kodak is lying, but if they have a decline in film sales this probably means less film is sold. I buy more than before so others must buy less.

And my standard answer to the permanency question, if you want realy long term storage, build pyramids! But don't complain if nobody understands your message in 2000 years.
 
bmattock said:
I really appreciate all you said - but wanted to concentrate on this bit above.

One thing that folks are not thinking about right now - environmental controls.

Making film uses exotic chemicals and they often go into the ground. The EPA has had many its teeth pulled in recent years (let us not go there), but they still don't like groundwater pollution. Old factories often get the nod, because the economics don't allow for cleanup and everybody gets that. So you can modernize old factories, but you can't open newer, smaller, ones - even those that pollute less.

<snip>
Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

There was a Rochester version of Love Canal across from Kodak Park at Lake and Ridge. Not being a native or long-time resident, I came across this via an online real estate listing a few months ago. A beautiful little arts and crafts house with gorgeous woodwork was selling for a really low price ... in the 40s, IIRC. I inquired to my realtor, as it had a first floor bedroom, which was attractive to me, but was also within walking distance to a Tim Hortons. (That's almost a requirement for a displaced Canadian!) The realtor replied with the background of the neighbourhood, that it was in a Kodak chemical sink that, while now cleaned up, had produced higher than normal cancer rate. As someone who gardens and grows a lot of our own herbs and veggies, that it wasn't an option to even consider the property, even though we would have been able to buy the house and be mortgage free.

But I wonder if current technology couldn't allow the building of a production facility that met, indeed exceeded, all environmental controls and regulations. The economics of it are another story, I'm sure.

Earl
 
Kevin said:
Bill,
You can clearly see that the consumer market is still divided by monitoring *bay. Millions of film cameras are trading hands yearly and these buyers are either reselling or hopefully using the cameras, in which case they are buying film. This is a real demand and the market responds to demand forces.

Kevin,

Sorry to continue to disagree, but to my way of thinking, eBay is a very tiny drop of the consumer camera market. This market buys at Best Buy, Comp-USA, Circuit City, Walmart, and Target (in the USA). These are where the trends are set and the market forces speak. Lowest common denominator.

Is there "real demand?" Well yes. Not enough.

Will the market respond to those demands? In my opinion, no. You and I see it as 'large demand' but the companies that produce cameras see it as a tiny bubble of resistance.

If people buy film, companies will continue making it.

Actually, no. The supply will end slightly before the demand - it has to be that way. Only a very foolish company would produce when the demand had gone completely.

If the big manufacturers sell off their plants, other companies will buy them and continue to produce.

If they can make a profit that the other company did not - for example, by jettisoning several layers of management, selling off capital investments, real estate, and other lucrative bit and pieces, to allow them to continue to extract profit from said plant.

However, keep this in mind. In many countries, buying an old (sometimes a century old) physical plant is an invitation to disaster - these places are ecological nightmares and will have to be cleaned up when they close for good. No one wants to buy into that kind of liability. In the US, we call it 'buying a pig in a poke.'

Compared to the textile industry, the chemical waste produced by film manufacture and development is nothing.

I don't know. However, I do know this - it is easier to keep an old polluting plant running than to build a new one and try to get permits and so on. Envronmental Impact studies and statements alone can kill any potential profit from a chemical plant like photography film must be. Easier to keep the old ones going.

That's why it is good for us that Kodak modernized several plants a few years ago. These are now producing more modern emulsions, better, faster, cheaper, and cleaner than could be done previously. Kodak can coast into the finish line with those - well done, Kodak.

It might become more expensive for users down the line, but film will never die.

Yes, it will. I'm sorry, but the only 'film' left will be produced by hobbiests in their garages at home. When? I cannot say. Perhaps after you and I are long dead. But it will happen.

Have a look at gigabit film gmbh. A small outfit making film. I do not know how big their plant is, but they are doing it.

Not to jump on the bandwagon - someone else already noted that Gigabit is actually made elsewhere. In fact, there are no new film producers. Old film in new boxes, is all.

It is fun to try to predict the future, but let's face it. You cannot.

Sure I can. Everybody can. I may not predict it accurately, but I can certainly predict it. Besides, I'm wicked smart.

And to reiterate what has been said in other threads: digital files are not permanent archives like film is.

Doesn't matter. The market speaks, not technical superiority.

Some photographers I know of in Germany are starting to back up their digital images onto .... yes .... film. Now how ironic is that?

Kevin

Ironic? Yes, and funny too. But cool.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
Kevin said:
And to reiterate what has been said in other threads: digital files are not permanent archives like film is. Some photographers I know of in Germany are starting to back up their digital images onto .... yes .... film.
Kevin

It's an idea that I've joked about before, but the key question is - how are they doing it? I know of no display devices above the 2MP range - printing sure but not display. Certainly none in the 6MP + range - so you're giving up some resolution there unless you have a printing step. I'd be curious to see any references to this, I couldn't find it when I googled (but I did find plenty of people wanting to take my credit card information and buy a film scanner from Amazon or Best Buy for me, then drop ship it from where I could have bought it myself without giving a 3rd party my credit card information.)

I mentioned it in another thread, but to the permanence point. I'm currently looking for 16mm reels so I can develop an obsolete film format. None of the local labs can print or scan it - I'll have to find some 16mm carriers or make them myself. We just found some E-4 slide film last weekend at mom's. I've now know of two places on the continent that will develop it. When retail film sales die (I mean WalMart, not B&H) all the minilabs are going away too. Prints may be durable, but I wouldn't count on being able to print a negative easily in 30 years. We'll likely have an obsolete PC we use just to run our old USB film or flatbed scanner - because the flatbeds aren't likely to have transparancy capability (overhead transparencies are already deader than film will be in the near future).
 
Bill, your arguments make perfect ecological and market sense, but I wont jump onto the digital bandwagon yet. But it does mean that I will abruptly stop buying used film cameras and concentrate on taking more pictures with what I already have.

It is a real pity because this optical/chemical film solution is very good if you factor out the chemical waste. Huge resolution "files" persisted in milliseconds, original hard-copy, no-fuss non-electronic archives and authentic unadulterated image pure. It is going to take some clever hardware-software solutions to match that, but I am sure it will be done given enough time and money. Until that happens, however, I will fill up my darkroom fridge with LOTS and LOTS of film.

Thanks for your enlightenment ... it hurts.

Kevin

P.S. Socke, building pyramids sounds like fun. Have you heard of the Zackhaus? I am sure they have a pyramid model coming soon !!! Check out the american dome homes at www.domehome.com, not too far off the mark (but still made of wood).
 
XAos said:
It's an idea that I've joked about before, but the key question is - how are they doing it? I know of no display devices above the 2MP range - printing sure but not display. Certainly none in the 6MP + range - so you're giving up some resolution there unless you have a printing step.

Back in the stoneage (1989) when my father became interested in computer graphics there where film recorders with 4000 lines/mm on 35mm and 8000 lines/mm on 6x6.

But he was quite satisfied with the ouput of a Linotype for his type of work 🙂
 
Kevin said:
Bill, your arguments make perfect ecological and market sense, but I wont jump onto the digital bandwagon yet. But it does mean that I will abruptly stop buying used film cameras and concentrate on taking more pictures with what I already have.

It is a real pity because this optical/chemical film solution is very good if you factor out the chemical waste. Huge resolution "files" persisted in milliseconds, original hard-copy, no-fuss non-electronic archives and authentic unadulterated image pure. It is going to take some clever hardware-software solutions to match that, but I am sure it will be done given enough time and money. Until that happens, however, I will fill up my darkroom fridge with LOTS and LOTS of film.

Thanks for your enlightenment ... it hurts.

Kevin

P.S. Socke, building pyramids sounds like fun. Have you heard of the Zackhaus? I am sure they have a pyramid model coming soon !!! Check out the american dome homes at www.domehome.com, not too far off the mark (but still made of wood).

Kevin,

I don't want to dissuade anyone from buying film cameras and film. Keep in mind that although the move away from film is happening faster than anyone anticipated, and even though I insist that film is a dead man walking, we could still be talking a decade or more before film is actually hard to obtain. Enjoy it, use it! Used film-based cameras will become cheaper and cheaper, so they'll be a great deal - just not an 'investment' if you know what I mean.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
aizan said:
since letterpress survives, i think film will too.

A press is a 'thing' or an 'object' that stands alone. It requires only paper and ink to work. As far as I know, although one can produce photosensitive paper with very little, it is not as easy to produce photosensitive mylar film.

Now, if someone comes up with a method whereby amateurs can 'make' film at home fairly cheaply and easily, with chemicals that will be available in the future, then I'd agree with you - and that may happen, if someone thinks there is a market for it.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks
 
bmattock said:
[/i]

Those who insist film is not dead...well, maybe not...
Bill Mattocks

Bill,
I do not insist ! Dead or not, who cares ? 🙂 All these forecasts again and again, what shall they prove ? They always come from folks who jumped intoto digital imaging. I've never seen threads of film users saying "FILM IS NOT DEAD!!" How come ? Do the authors have to prove they have jumped to the "right side" at the right time , do they have to prove they were "right " with there decisions and invests ?

To be honest I simply don't give a damn on any forecast , I don't care if they are right or wrong, I just keep shooting film as long as there will be some available in my niche market. And this niche will live as long as there are enuff morons like me, who still find film better looking. And there are still a lot of them. If THEY are all dead, then first film will be dead too. But who knows if this will ever happen at all ? Seems there is a new generation following our tracks 😀

Emulsionly,
Bertram
 
Bertram, those who didn't jump into digital post threads "proving" how much better film is over digital 🙂

Like higher resolution, better dynamic range and bigger prints. But nobody could tell me how I get FP4 dynamic range with the resolution of Astia-F and the colors of Velvia printed to 20"x30" in my bedroom 🙂

So, although it's raining I have to go out and fill that roll, still 18 frames left, to test the Contax G1 I bought. The shutterrelease is improving after my dry runs and the truth is in the prints!
 
Socke said:
Bertram, those who didn't jump into digital post threads "proving" how much better film is over digital 🙂

Like higher resolution, better dynamic range and bigger prints. But nobody could tell me how I get FP4 dynamic range with the resolution of Astia-F and the colors of Velvia printed to 20"x30" in my bedroom 🙂

Socke,
I haven't seen such "FILM IS BETTER THAN DIGITAL !!" threads her in the forums, did I miss something ?

>>But nobody could tell me how I get FP4 dynamic range with the resolution of >>Astia-F and the colors of Velvia printed to 20"x30" in my bedroom 🙂

Socke, what an intimate confession !!!
There are quite abnormal things going on in your bedroom, to say the least !!
But maybe for a true photog there is some erotic tension even in this "workflow"
😀 😀 😀

Best regards,
Bertra,
 
aizan said:
since letterpress survives, i think film will too.


Well, Letterpress survives sorta. I am a hobbiest Letterpress printer. There are no new "letterpress" presses made. There are no new typecasting machines made, but there are plenty of operating survivors. Typefounding is now relegated to a cottage industry, with only a very very few suppliers.
 
do new presses and typecasting machines need to be made? they were built to last forever as long as they were maintained. frank boross from the toxic coyote press showed us how to lube, adjust, and operate a semi-functional original heidelberg windmill two weeks ago. typefounding is also mostly unnecessary now that we have photopolymer, though it's nice to have lead type for teaching purposes. the big thing there is to redraw typefaces.

it's small, but it'll survive just because people like doing it.

as for film, there will be less selection and it'll cost more, but it will be as good or better than ever. i'm absolutely sure the market will be large enough to support a few manufacturers, so i'm not worrying about making film at home.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom