Nikon going out of the film camera business

[bmattock]

But you still do not know it is a fact.

Yes, I do. I have proven it. It is a fact.

You cannot claim speculation as fact.

Anyone can claim anything as fact. However, facts are self-consistant and based in reality. I am not speculating. Speculation is based on incomplete evidence.

The only person I ever heard of who did that was David Brent. Fact.

You're mistaking a 'fact' for truth. It is a fact that gravity exists. There is no absolute proof for it (yet), but we all accept the fact of gravity. It is not a truth that gravity exists, because no one can yet prove that it works the way we think it does. Do you feel yourself floating away yet? I guess gravity is a fact, then.

The death of film for photography is a reality - nothing is going to change that - but it won't be a 'truth' until the day the last roll comes off an assembly line somewhere. If you prefer to call any prediction based on logic, observation, insight, intelligence, and deductive reasoning 'mere speculation' you certainly can do that - but in this case, you're just engaging in self-deception on a pretty big scale. Your choice, of course.

Film may be dead in the US, but not elsewhere. Personally I can't wait for Kodak to stop all film production because it means an even bigger slice of the pie for little old Ilford.

A bigger slice of a shrinking pie is not more pie. You didn't take geometry in school, did you?

Ilford *will* get a bump. And Foma, Forte, Efke, Lucky, Era, etc. But they don't make color film, unless I am greatly mistaken.

Fuji and Mitsubishi and maybe even Ferrania will inherit Agfa and Kodak's color business, *if* they are still in the game when Kodak exits. And of course that will bump their sales numbers up for awhile.

Meanwhile here in reality, consumer film sales are still declining 30% year on year. Eventually, they have a market for 100% of nothing. I guess that means they win?

Their sales increased when Agfa folded, they will increase when Kodak give up on photography too.

An corpse twitching once in awhile is hardly an optimistic outlook. It's that geometry thing again, huh? See, larger pieces of smaller pies are not 'bigger' - the numbers just make them look that way.

If film was to die, and that is very unlikely, that won't just be the loss of a hobby, it will be the loss of an entire artform.

A) It isn't unlikely, it is happening. I present reason and evidence. You just keep saying it is not happening. Who is deluded here?

B) And no, it won't be the loss of any entire artform.

If film dies there will no longer be an artform called 'photography', just a pale imitation called 'Photoshopping'.

If that's what you choose to call it, then yes. You can refuse to look at photographs, er, digital images, ever again if it makes you bitter to see them. Art goes on - technology changes.

You act as if digital photography will never get any better than it is right now, today. There is no reason to believe this; in fact, the evidence suggests that the digital photography realm is getting better and better in leaps and bounds. Prices keep dropping, image quality keeps going up.

Film is better than digital in almost every way. That will change in time. But regardless of quality - the market makes the decisions, not the desired quality. The best product doesn't win - the most popular one does. Pretending it is not happening doesn't change anything.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[squeaky_clean]

Nope, "a mass produced inkjet print" is probably not art.

However, would any of say, Ansel Adams' work be any less of for being produced digitally versus film? I personally don't think so.

I guess for me the art of photography lies in getting the picture, and not so much in how it is processed. For the most part, no amount of processing can make a good picture bad. (There are exceptions, I am aware) Either you have the picture, or you don't.

 

[bmattock]

Contrary to what it kinda sounds like reading this thread, I don't think the death of film will be the end of the world.

I agree.

That said, I will cerainly bemoan the day, as much as anyone else, that I can no longer use film.

Me, too.

I owned a digital SLR, and was so dissapointed by the quality I quickly switched back to film. However, I am fairly confident that by the time that film does pass on, digital will have certainly come to the point where the quality will be comparable. (And hopefully somewhat affordable...🙂)

I agree.

Being too young to remember, I am wondering if this is how many people felt when CD's started to replace LP's? While I will be the first to admit that the is something about the analog sounds of an LP that a CD just can't quite reproduce... However, the advances in technology that the CD brought us allowed for much more to be done with music, and overall the art of music benefitted, and we as consumers of that artform benefitted as well.

There are still plenty of people who believe that LP's sound better than CD's. I'm one of them. There are also people who believe that CD's are a fad, and LP's are coming back strong. Denial.

You make a good point, though. I like to read old photography magazines. You should read the objections and refutations and denouncements from the crusty old farts who were upset because the Twin-lens Reflex was no longer popular. Or that 'inferior' roll film was taking over from 'superior' glass plates. True photography was dead, they cried. An artform lost forever.

Yeah, right.

Also, I don't think that the death of film could be called the death of an artform.

I agree.

Essentially, photography is capturing an image. Whether that be by film or pixel, it is still photography. The art is in the image, not the medium. Altough the medium can aid or restrict what art can be produced, and become PART of that art, it is never the art in itself.

So, I guess there's my 2 cents.

I agree, except that I think photography is not the recording, but the display, of an image that makes it art.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Andy K]

Yes, I do. I have proven it. It is a fact.

You have not proved a thing. All you have done is voiced the opinion that 'film is dead'.

A bigger slice of a shrinking pie is not more pie. You didn't take geometry in school, did you?

Yes I did actually, in my design and engineering class. However I did pie charts and algebra in my mathematics class. A percentage of a smaller market is still a percentage. A 30% reduction this year leaves 70%. Next year another 30% reduction will still be 30% of 100%, leaving 70%. The 70% figure will be a smaller figure than previously, but it is still a worthwhile amount.

Ilford *will* get a bump. And Foma, Forte, Efke, Lucky, Era, etc. But they don't make color film, unless I am greatly mistaken.

I don't use colour film.

B) And no, it won't be the loss of any entire artform.

Yes it would. Just as no more oil paints would mean no more oil paintings. Making an inkjet print and calling it a 'digital oil work' will not make it an oil painting.

If that's what you choose to call it, then yes. You can refuse to look at photographs, er, digital images, ever again if it makes you bitter to see them. Art goes on - technology changes.

We're back to that 'is an inkjet of an oil painting actually an oil painting' thing again aren't we.

You act as if digital photography will never get any better than it is right now, today. There is no reason to believe this; in fact, the evidence suggests that the digital photography realm is getting better and better in leaps and bounds. Prices keep dropping, image quality keeps going up.

I'll switch to digital when every 36 shots I get a roll of negatives out the back of the camera and not before.

IF film dies I'll probably take up painting, because photoshopping is not ME creating something, it is a machine creating something.

 

[ch1]

Geez, what seems to have been lost here are the facts that:

1) Nikon is continuing production of the F6

2) Via Cosina, Nikon is continuing production of the FM-10

3) Nikon is continuing production of most Nikkor manual primes from 20mm through 105mm

I think it was Brian Sweeney way back on page 1 or so that pointed out that for film SLRs Nikon's (and Canon's) biggest competitors are themselves!

They built a ton of really good gear from the 60's through the 90's and you can find plenty of it available on any day of the week right on eBay etc.

The used film camera market is alive and well. Someone is buying all of those used cameras. So I suspect that the demand for film will continue for quite sometime. And as i remember from my old Econ 101 Samuelson: supply rises to meet demand.

So let's all go burn a lot of film and keep the demand high! 😀

 

[Byuphoto]

I think I have read this somewhere before. It keeps nagging me. Was it some old SF novel? Was it the Wooster battle-cry?
Byuphoto-enlighten me - it is abrading my mind!

Don't let the B******s wear you down or literally B******S not wear down

 

[bmattock]

The Mona Lisa is art, the cheap repros made by machine by the thousands are not.

If you went to the Louvre, and you saw a print of the Mona Lisa that was made with such skill that you did not know the difference - how would you be diminished? In what way would your experience be ruined?

Art happens between the ears of the recipient.

A fine art print made by a human being, in a darkroom from a film negative using light sensitive materials and their hands is art, a mass produced inkjet print produced by machine is not.

If you can tell the difference between a 'fine art print' made in a darkroom and an inkjet print, and it makes a difference to your perception, then you are absolutely right - everyone experiences 'art' their own way.

If you can't tell the difference, but are told later...and it somehow matters to you...then I can't help you.

My suggestion is that if it is not true now, it will be true soon - inkjet prints will fool even longtime darkroom enthusiasts. Oh, not you, though. I know.

Cue the howls of protest! 🙄

You'll get no protest from me. If you don't like inkjet prints, then ok with me. I don't know if you're aware that you can print digital photographs on traditional darkroom enlargers or not - but I guess it doesn't matter. Your mind is good and made up, and that's that.

It's still the same old stale argument - digital is not as 'good' as film-based photography so therefore:

a) It is therefore not photography.
b) Film will never die.

Let me know when you come up with an actual point. We'll have a party.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[VinceC]

>>Being too young to remember, I am wondering if this is how many people felt when CD's started to replace LP's?<<

Even worse, I think, because more people are more heavily invested in their music than in their cameras. The CD revolution happened much more swiftly because the started out with top quality upon introduction. There remains a small, dedicated market for vinyl, and it retains a certain classic status.

 

[parks5920]

blah, blah, blah, the horse is dead, quit beating it.

 

[bmattock]

You have not proved a thing. All you have done is voiced the opinion that 'film is dead'.

Wrong. Look it up, Andy. A 'fact' does not have to be proven.

You behave as though anything short of proof is opinion.

OK, then gravity is my opinion. Does that sound right?

Yes I did actually, in my design and engineering class. However I did pie charts and algebra in my mathematics class. A percentage of a smaller market is still a percentage. A 30% reduction this year leaves 70%. Next year another 30% reduction will still be 30% of 100%, leaving 70%. The 70% figure will be a smaller figure than previously, but it is still a worthwhile amount.

No, it is not, once manufacturing output drops below the ability of the factory to produce it at a profit at a price the market will pay. I've shown that.

I don't use colour film.

So it doesn't exist?

Yes it would. Just as no more oil paints would mean no more oil paintings. Making an inkjet print and calling it a 'digital oil work' will not make it an oil painting.

If you can't tell the difference, explain what the difference is. And again - quality as a 'reason' that film must therefore continue to be produced. You can't seem to get past that, even though there is no logic in it.

We're back to that 'is an inkjet of an oil painting actually an oil painting' thing again aren't we.

No, we're back to that "if digital output is not as good as darkroom printing, therefore film will never die" nonsense, apparently.

If you can tell the difference, there is a difference. What you prefer is what you prefer. If you cannot tell the difference, there is no difference to you.

I'll switch to digital when every 36 shots I get a roll of negatives out the back of the camera and not before.

You'll switch when you can't buy another roll of film anywhere. Or you'll do without. But good luck to you regardless.

IF film dies I'll probably take up painting, because photoshopping is not ME creating something, it is a machine creating something.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough - that's your choice, and I would not dream of telling you what you should and should not like.

Personally, I refuse to drive a car that doesn't have a crank sticking out of the front of it, because electric starters are the Devil's Handiwork. And the Model T will be mass-produced again, just you wait. The highways will all be ripped up, and we'll crap outdoors.

Oh wait, I was thinking I was you for a minute. Nevermind.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Andy K]

BMattocks, you are speaking from your B Uttocks.

 

[ch1]

Perhaps, Bill, the problem here is a semantic one.

To me, and I believe many others here, so long as I can buy film and get it developed then film is NOT dead.

It is true that there is little if any expectation that we will see improvements in existing film technology - so in that sense it is dead, as in a dead-end, non-evolving format.

Why not explain to folks here what exactly YOU mean when you say "film is dead" and then we can all move on to some other thread that needs livening up!

BTW: I did not see it, but apparently there was a WSJ article yesterday reporting that those so-called 100 year "archival quality" CD/DVDs are losing data after only b/w 3 and 5 years.

Hmmmm?

 

[Andy K]

1. fact n. (100%)
a thing that is indisputably the case. • ( facts ) information used as evidence or as part of a report. • chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.


2. matter of fact n. (71%)
a fact as distinct from an opinion or conjecture.

 

[parks5920]

Roflmmfao!

 

[bmattock]

And as i remember from my old Econ 101 Samuelson: supply rises to meet demand.

A) We can't create enough demand to fuel a fart in a teapot. The consumer market for photography is valued in the high billions. We're not even a blip.

B) Your econ prof was wrong, or rather, too simplistic. Supply rises to meet demand in the absence of other variables.

For example, the demand for dodo bird eggs may be quite high. And there are no dodos. So whither the dodo?

Presuming that manufacturers understand their marketplace, supply always ends before demand does. How much before is a facet of the economies of manufacturing scale for that particular widget, among other variables. Manufacturers who do not understand their marketplace may well produce items that no one wants, but that's not likely to happen to photographic film. It sure did with Chia Pet heads, though.

Only in a perfect world does the last demanded widget roll off the assembly line as the last item of its type made. Demand always exceeds supply, or vice-versa. Smart companies strive to end production before demand totally ends, so they don't lose their shirts supplying the last stragglers. Remember, no matter what their public pronouncements of solidarity with the consumer might be, they are legally and fiscally responsible to their stockholders, not to their devotees.

In what world would you imagine a roll of Kodak Tri-X rolling off an assembly line as the whole friggin' miles long factory is shut down and all the workers laid off - they waited and waited so that they could make that last roll just for you, regardless of cost?

Since film manufacturing factories make their profit on a slim margin the dictates huge scale, once demand drops below some critical level, they must shut the factory down or begin bleeding money on a major scale. It is not an option to just make less of it.

That old 'supply and demand' canard has got some legs, I'll give it that - but it is a lie.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[robert blu]

Beside my Bessa R, which is my 1st step into RF cameras, I have in my family three Nikon, (hi-tech F100 and totally manual FM-2 for me and easy to use f-65 for my wife) with a range of lens starting from 20mm to 80-200, plus some old lens like a 50mm/F1.4 I found very old last summer. I bought 1st Nikon about 10 years ago, choicing Nikon because it was the camera I could not afford to buy when young boy ! I like the system ! But times are changing ! Now my question is : If big makers will stop to produce cameras what will do film companies ?
oh, it's a sad new .

 

[parks5920]

A) We can't create enough demand to fuel a fart in a teapot.

I like that.

 

[parks5920]

Bill, you have the best one liners, bar none, to the rest of the posts. Bill wins!

 

[bmattock]

1. fact n. (100%)
a thing that is indisputably the case. • ( facts ) information used as evidence or as part of a report. • chiefly Law the truth about events as opposed to interpretation.


2. matter of fact n. (71%)
a fact as distinct from an opinion or conjecture.

Correct. A fact is not opinion or conjecture. Gravity is not opinion. Film is dead. that is not opinion and not conjecture. Kodak says they are exiting film. Agfa is gone. Film sales are decreasing like they fell off a cliff. The inescapable conclusion is that if you fall on your ass, you'll feel it. Gravity exists, and film is dead.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

BMattocks, you are speaking from your B Uttocks.

Nobody ever thought of that one before. Congratulations. Your witty repartee has won you the respect and admiration of thousands. Hear the crowd chant your name. And etc.

Best Regards,

Bill Buttocks