Oh yes, photography's had its gimmicks and fads for a very long time.
I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.
Originally Posted by lxdude
That's Why God Invented Spiratone !
Writing pure conjecture and falsehoods over and over again doesn't make them right. The hardship at Kodak has been observed for a long time and has been discussed endlessly here on APUG, and the facts provided by insiders contradict your assertions. Yes, the downfall of popular film use certainly didn't help them but the biggest decline happened many years ago. Their digital blunders certainly didn't help either.
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
Kodak appears to me like someone who uses a truck to carry computers from the times when computers filled a room. The truck wasn't bad but hardly anybody needs a truck for that anymore. The truck was repurposed for all kind of other tasks but never handled them well, and you can't just make a truck smaller.
The Ilford truck got tossed out many years ago and was replaced with a slick computer bag, which does well. We'll see what will happen to the Kodak truck in the next few months.
The decline of movie film use has already been covered here, and while this certainly hurts Kodak and Fuji (and therefore maybe color film in general) a lot, it won't harm the other players.
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
Who cares? Say good bye to the old Kodak already and hope they get reborn as a small and flexible company which makes color film. It might well be that the Lomo crowd will help resurrect color film, like them or not.
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
Trying to be the best of whatever I am, even if what I am is no good.
In 120 but not in 35mm
Originally Posted by Willie Jan
Personally, I think I've read enough speculation for now. Nothing we say or do here will alter what happens with Kodak or the future of their products.....if you're feeling pessimistic, just stock up with any Kodak films which you think you might need, otherwise why not spend the time taking, processing and printing some photos, then check back in three or six months. We'll know then.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
As far as I understand the situation, the ILFORD facility was built in the early 1980s when there was much more use of black & white photographic materials for commercial and industrial purposes (e.g. newspapers and HP5). I suspect one key to the success of ILFORD Photo has been a coating line than can cope with defined runs of a particular product, and then be cleaned and changed over to coat for a different product. In comparison to Kodak building machines that are capable of coating Tri-X continuously for example.
Here Here, whiles't I would be very sad to see kodak film disapear, especialy Trix, which I have used for many years, nothing we can say or do will change anything, and it would not be the end of the film world, Ilford seems to be still going well, as is adox,foma and other smaller makers, so why don't we all use and enjoy the Kodak films while we have them, and if they go then look around for other materials, and continue to enjoy the photography we love, I don't see film and darkroom disapearing in my lifetime,so just have fun with film,
Originally Posted by railwayman3
I worked for Kodak 1984-1990. At that point it was easy to see that Kodak management did not have good vision. They were using the highly profitable film "trust fund" to market (not manufacture) a new course. They tried selling:
-Floppy disks and Video tape (short lived)
-Batteries (that leaked). They thought they were equal to Duracell/Eveready.
-Sterling Drugs (bought high, sold low)
-8mm? video cameras (don't remember the format, but neither did anyone else)
Ten years after I quit, it seemed like Kodak couldn't kill film quick enough. It seemed like they thought Wall Street was equating Kodak future with film sales, so they were killing film to show they had moved on. It seemed to me they should have tried SOMETHING to prolong films sales since film is extremely profitable. Off the top of my head:
-Develop a way to record digital images on film (like a backup hard drive) so there is a permanent record of your images that won't fail.
-Promote digital internegs and contact printing onto photo (silver) paper
-Feature a film photographer of the month
-Court the large format crowd of photographers. (They're the least likely to go digital.)
-Advertise film (wow, a radical idea)
Anyway, what I saw seemeed like Kodak was trying to show how it was "out of film photography," and that helped promote the general public switching to digital.
Unfortunately, I think Kodak will be sliced up and sold off as scrap, meaning film production will be gone in a year or two.
I can guarantee you discussions like this won't stop. They are a vent and, to some extent, a talisman to ward off evil. There's people here who feed themselves and their families via film photography, people who just enjoy the physical act of taking pictures (me), people who hold on to this archaic process as a way to hold on to a disappearing past and their memories of it (me again).
Originally Posted by R.Gould
Thankfully, millions of cameras were manufactured. Thankfully, they are pretty robust devices, and with a little care and some grease from time to time they will certainly outlast their owners. So we have a plentiful supply of used cameras going forward*. That base is covered. With some very inexpensive tools one can mix at home all the great B&W developers so that base is covered. Film is another matter. It's complex, as PE has often alluded to, and even if you are able to coat your own 4x5 film I think coating five feet of 35mm film base would be not so easy. So when film supply is threatened it is worrisome. As good little consumers all we can do is buy film but if the situation is such that selling film cannot remedy the problem (like Kodak's) then that base is not entirely covered. There are other films out there but who's to say? Kodak was King once too, remember? My point here is that you should not expect threads like this to disappear or stay rational because the core issues are not entirely rational, or financial, or organizational.
You're entirely right about having fun. That's why we're in this.
* In 2005(?) Nikon released in Japan only a commemorative Nikon SP rangefinder. New production of, I think, 2500 units. They sold out. Poof. I seriously doubt Nikon would have immediately destroyed the tooling for those. I believe there will be a point of resistance reached to sales of yet another rev of digital cameras. Just like the hamster wheel of another more powerful computer every few years. Nikon's D4, the new flagship, has "only" 16M pixels; 30% fewer than the prior flagship's 24M, and the price is lower as well. What's up with that? Declining demand? I'm sure there's a lot of new-ness to pay for but perhaps Nikon has reached a point of declining returns on the tech, a point of stasis, and now needs frillier features to make sales. Like HD movies. Maybe the prosumer market is becoming sated. Meanwhile that SP tooling is out there... The CFO is trying to guess at Leica's numbers; tea leaves just have to turn up correctly.
Tom, this is very interesting and smart idea too! Do you know when did the Ilford facilty introduced the "switchable" type of coating production? I have been using Ilford since the HP3 years and thinking that the PanF, FP4 and HP5+ were all having sperate lines of coating. Thank you.
Originally Posted by Tom Kershaw