Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,971   Posts: 1,558,578   Online: 1132
      
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57
  1. #31
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle View Post
    Isn't kodak manufacturing digital sensors for the likes of the leica S2 etc? Im sure thats profitable if thats the case. I realise not many hideously expensive cameras like that are sold in comparison to others though.

    My random ponderings suggest a number of things. One is that film has major archive/long term stability benefit. I wonder if in the next few years people will understand how unstable their million pictures of their kids on their computer is (possibly after they lose them in a crash). It will probably take a lot more than that to convert people back to accepting film though. It would be a nice world if film and digital shared 50% each of the market, more opportunity and availability of resources for all. Even my dad has suggested film is dead, thats just infuriating.
    I think one issue however is that society no longer holds photographs with the same level of value - hence loss of them is not considered as much of a loss as it would have been before.

    Why? Because effort to attain is now less than it was before.
    Result: Less attached and perceived value because of lower original cost/effort.

    The discussion itself may not entirely even be about film, really, but more about the Photograph itself.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  2. #32
    Sirius Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southern California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    13,202
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle View Post
    My random ponderings suggest a number of things. One is that film has major archive/long term stability benefit. I wonder if in the next few years people will understand how unstable their million pictures of their kids on their computer is (possibly after they lose them in a crash). It will probably take a lot more than that to convert people back to accepting film though.
    The problem is that:
    • they do not care
    • they do not know
    • they do not want to know
    • and the don't care that they do now know

    That is a big part of the problem.
    Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!

    Nothing beats a great piece of glass!

    I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.

  3. #33
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle View Post
    Isn't kodak manufacturing digital sensors for the likes of the leica S2 etc? Im sure thats profitable if thats the case.
    They recently sold off that unit in Nov-11:

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Kodak_...num_Equity.htm
    Andy

  4. #34
    Danielle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by Sirius Glass View Post
    The problem is that:
    • they do not care
    • they do not know
    • they do not want to know
    • and the don't care that they do now know

    That is a big part of the problem.
    This might be evil of me to hope this, but they might decide they care when they completely lose their photo's of their kids growing up! - Just a thought.
    All that really matters in the end is the image, not what your using to create it.

  5. #35
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle View Post
    Isn't kodak manufacturing digital sensors for the likes of the leica S2 etc? Im sure thats profitable if thats the case. I realise not many hideously expensive cameras like that are sold in comparison to others though.

    My random ponderings suggest a number of things. One is that film has major archive/long term stability benefit. I wonder if in the next few years people will understand how unstable their million pictures of their kids on their computer is (possibly after they lose them in a crash). It will probably take a lot more than that to convert people back to accepting film though. It would be a nice world if film and digital shared 50% each of the market, more opportunity and availability of resources for all. Even my dad has suggested film is dead, thats just infuriating.
    The vast majority of people have no problems with digital instability. The "shoebox phenomenon" of unsorted, poorly managed image management existed long before digital came along.

    Film is expensive and digital is cheap. A $150 camera with film requires more expense for every roll purchased and processed. With a digital camera each photo gets cheaper as the processing is inside on a tiny microchip. This is an economy that film cannot compete with.

    A larger and larger majority of digital photographers no longer print. They upload and share. That's the new normal.

    Converting people "back to film" is unworkable. Instead, film needs to be seen as an alternative process; a niche market with character all its own. It can be sold on that premise (sort of how Lomography does it), but film will allays lose the combined quality/convenience/cost argument because the first one is good enough for 99% of the market, and it wins the other two decisively. Digital can be seen as ubiquitous and the fast food , highly commercialized product, while film could occupy a (very) small niche as the "slow food" movement of imaging. A little more expensive, but contemplative and filled with alchemy and mystery and unpredictability. I see market space for that concept. I do not see film able to compete in any way for the majority consumer market mind share with digital.

    One has to understand the Kodak spent a huge amount of capital trying to make film as near an instant gratification process as possible. Film and the Kodak logo were everywhere. One hour processing and so on. All of that costs money and is an infrastructure that digital wipes away with the rear LCD.

    Kodak sold its CCD sensor division last year. Part of the purpose of the bankruptcy is to sell the digital imaging IP Kodak built up over the last 50 years largely because Kodak no longer has the revenues to develop products from it and would struggle to find the resources to defend their IP.

  6. #36
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Danielle View Post
    This might be evil of me to hope this, but they might decide they care when they completely lose their photo's of their kids growing up! - Just a thought.
    Nahh, they will have them on Facebook

    You are preaching to the choir...we all love fim and it's virtues, we are just the 1%
    Last edited by zsas; 01-21-2012 at 07:17 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Tripe'oh
    Andy

  7. #37
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristophanes View Post
    The vast majority of people have no problems with digital instability. The "shoebox phenomenon" of unsorted, poorly managed image management existed long before digital came along.

    Film is expensive and digital is cheap. A $150 camera with film requires more expense for every roll purchased and processed. With a digital camera each photo gets cheaper as the processing is inside on a tiny microchip. This is an economy that film cannot compete with.
    Dude you sure get around, don't you? The thing you keep missing about your "audience" here is that they don't really care about how cheap digital is. Why do you insist on continually trying to convince APUG members of this? You're simply mistaken if you believe that the majority of people on this site want or even believe themselves that film is a mass-market consumer player.

    Also, you're seriously ignoring one obvious aspect about the "shoebox phenomenon": that in the wake of bad treatment or storage, by and large most still have some semblance of their images - even if said images have suffered over the years. Anybody sane will take a degraded but still perceivable analog image over a stream of completely lost or unreadable binary.

    The deeper issue is the treatment or cultural valuation of the photograph as a visual medium rather than the actual medium of the photograph. Lowering barrier to entry so low that images are now almost ephemeral and costless has resulted in the "no limits" effect: even more crap that's given less attention to than it ever was before.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  8. #38
    Danielle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by zsas View Post
    Nahh, they will have them on Facebook

    You are preaching to the choir...we all love fim and it's vitues, we are just the 1%

    Yes, I don't think anyone on apug needs converting.

    *nods* Yeah your quite right, pictures in general are used in quite different ways now. There's no going back, I think we all realise that even though its partially sad too. Just so long as the film/analog segment of the market DOES stay available. I know its not about to go away anytime soon.

    On a side note I love the replies and posts which get put up on this site.
    All that really matters in the end is the image, not what your using to create it.

  9. #39
    zsas's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,962
    Images
    74
    I have no worry that film will go away (some of the players won't make it) but as some say, they still make buggy whips
    Andy

  10. #40
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    If you want a perspective on Kodak and archiving:

    http://group47.com/site/index.php/about/group-47-llc

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin