What are Kodak's true motives?

[tlatosmd]

All of those people I met at my multimedia college dreamed of film but shot on DV because they thought 16mm and 35mm were too expensive. They all laughed at me when I told them about S8.

[Alex]

And as for digital, I'd call upon the digital decline about to come as everyone and their dog is soon to have a digital cam which means the market will be satisified and they'll all see those disadvantages in digital besides quick convenience which don't even out less quality.

The average consumer, which represents the majority, doesn't care about quality as much as they do simplicity and low cost. As long as it is "good enough" and simple to use, then digital will get all the funding. Thus, it is the inadequacies of the user that determine the lowest common denominator and not the superiority of one format over another. The public has had almost 100 years to master film and it hasn't happened yet. There will be no paradigm shift in their values or techincal skills that will suddenly make film more viable or desirable to the average Joe shooting home movies of his family. Film is simply too expensive and complicated for the average person, regardless of the results. What we feel about it means nothing to the corporate world because we are the minority. Not fun to admit but that's the fact.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

If anything, films continued useage is by people who find digital too be too expensive and complicated! Digital is equated with electricity, film is equated with printing.

You don't need electricity to view paper prints made from film. Kodak is competing in the print paper business as well. The total amount of both print paper and film printing that will be purchased on a yearly basis will remain stable for a very long time, irrespective of how good digital becomes, because digital requires electricity to view.

[MovieStuff]

If anything, films continued useage is by people who find digital too be too expensive and complicated!

I really don't see your point. Notating the characteristics of the minority that prefer film over digital doesn't change the reality of why digital is commercially taking over film's role in the larger market. It is like saying that there are still people that like to hear Barry Manilow sing "Mandy". I'm sure there are but, so what? He's irrelevant.

Besides, I know no one that thinks digital is too complicated or expensive. Do you think it is too complicated? Even my mother can shoot digital with a degree of proficiency that she was never able to muster with any of her film cameras and those cameras added together cost more than her el-cheap digital still camera that she can now actually shoot usable pictures with. My 6 year old can shoot digital stills without even thinking about it.

Digital is equated with electricity, film is equated with printing.
You don't need electricity to view paper prints made from film.

Nor from digital. Again, what sort of distinction are you trying to make about digital that doesn't also apply to film?

Kodak is competing in the print paper business as well. The total amount of both print paper and film printing that will be purchased on a yearly basis will remain stable for a very long time, irrespective of how good digital becomes,

This is 100% incorrect. Kodak is taking a beating on their photographic paper because all labs are moving away from chemical based imaging and printing. Ink jet prints are the only way to go, commerically. They're stable, predictable and archival. The equipment is cheap, requires no specialized labor and you have zero EPA issues to hassle with. Most importantly, digital prints are far better than printing optically off the same negative. It is truly a win-win situation for labs and photographers that originate on film or digital and just another reason why photographic paper sales are not what they used to be.

because digital requires electricity to view.

So do negatives and slides, unless you are talking about going into the front yard or holding them up to a candle, neither of which a serious lab is going to do and they are the ones that have provided the largest customer base for Kodak's paper stocks. That dominance is now going down the tubes due to ink jet printers that are easy to use, dependable, and cheap.

We make archival, 18x24 digital prints that are absolute, 100% photographic quality all the time in our restoration business on an HP printer that costs only about $1500. Six years ago, it would have cost $50,000. We can also make 24x any length prints when using roll paper. Kodak is trying to hold onto their paper sales but they are losing rapidly because virtually all labs are going to hi-res archival ink jet prints and away from chemical based imaging.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Alex]

I'm not linking paper to chemical, you just assumed I was.

Digital is easier in every respect, including shooting way more than is necessary and also losing valued shots in a myriad of computer related ways.
As for implying that point and shoot film cameras are complicated, that is rather a ridiculous notion. If mom or grandmom can't load the film, all it takes is for someone to load it for them, and then they can point and shoot.

Gosh Roger, to hear you tell it, there aren't anymore 1 hour fotos left.

Will we ever see the day where newsprint no longer exists? If Film goes by the wayside, it should only be if newsprint goes as well.

[wahiba]

There is one form of didigtal that actually emulates the'good ole days :roll: ' Taking 20 second silent clips on a digital camera without a zoom lens. No more winding up and at the end of the day a quick film with a sound track can be produced.

I am quite pleased with this effort:
http://www.siltec.co.uk/places/indmus/bancroft1.htm

[MovieStuff]

I'm not linking paper to chemical, you just assumed I was.

And you should have before you incorrectly made a statement that photographic paper sales will be strong and steady for a long time. Your statement was wrong and it is because of the chemical issue.

Digital is easier in every respect, including shooting way more than is necessary and also losing valued shots in a myriad of computer related ways.

Irrevelant. The public prefers to shoot more than necessary; something they can not do cheaply with film based cameras

As for implying that point and shoot film cameras are complicated, that is rather a ridiculous notion.

Not at all. Point and shoot film cameras are easy for some and hard for others. Digital cameras are easy for everyone. That is the important difference.

Gosh Roger, to hear you tell it, there aren't anymore 1 hour fotos left.

Of course there are and they all, every one of them, now print digitally. They scan the negative first and then pull a print. In fact, many are now going to ink jet prints instead of chemical prints.

Will we ever see the day where newsprint no longer exists? .

Dunno but most newspapers are also now printed digitally. ;)

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[Angus]

It says that Super 8 film sales peaked in 1979 and 1980 at 19,000,000 carts per year. It lists the total German sales of Super 8 carts in 2004 at 100,000.

That I can believe. I am 100% sure the Swiss lab is processing a hell of a lot more than 100,000 carts per year.

But with the figure above (100,000 in Germany in 2004) are we talking K40 carts or all super 8 emulsions?

[monobath]

Kodak is competing in the print paper business as well. The total amount of both print paper and film printing that will be purchased on a yearly basis will remain stable for a very long time, irrespective of how good digital becomes,

This is 100% incorrect. Kodak is taking a beating on their photographic paper because all labs are moving away from chemical based imaging and printing. Ink jet prints are the only way to go, commerically. They're stable, predictable and archival. The equipment is cheap, requires no specialized labor and you have zero EPA issues to hassle with. Most importantly, digital prints are far better than printing optically off the same negative. It is truly a win-win situation for labs and photographers that originate on film or digital and just another reason why photographic paper sales are not what they used to be.

Roger, I agree with most everything you said, except for these comments. The state of the art for commercial color printing from either color negative film or from digital files exposes by laser onto RC type papers like Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Supra, that are then chemically processed in RA-4 chemistry. High end examples of this type of system are the Fuji Frontier and the Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet printers. Low-end drugstore optical scanner/optical enlarging with RA-4 processing is still the most common type of commercial printing from color neg.

Inkjet is used predominantly by home printers and professional printers that print in relatively small volume. Inkjet printing has gotten very good in terms of photo-realism and archival quality (for high end printers starting with the Epson 2200 a couple of years ago, and many more since then), but it arguably still isn't at the quality level of a Lightjet print or Fuji Frontier print. Or a custom hand-enlarged and printed image by a master printer, but that is a small niche market these days.

Inkjet printing produces amazing quality these days, but it is not an industry standard for high-volume commercial printing.

All that doesn't mean that Kodak and other paper-producers aren't in trouble for a variety of reasons. One reason I've read about recently is that fewer people are having prints made, period. Most people who shoot digital evidently just keep the majority of their pictures in electronic format without ever printing them on any medium.

[Roy Brown]

Movestuff wrote

Not at all. Point and shoot film cameras are easy for some and hard for others. Digital cameras are easy for everyone. That is the important difference.

I beg to differ on this one point. Shooting a picture with a point and shot film or digital camera is about the same. The differance is after the shot film users take out the roll of film get prints and they are done. Digital users hook up to a computer, download, then print there pictures. Logic dictates that more people are going to have problems with the digital process than simply dropping a roll of film off. Now if your talking results, are you saying the digital users are getting more good shots per session? Highly unlikely as this is much more to do with the photographer than the equipment. My Mother in Law cuts off more heads than a guillotine, It doesn't matter what camera she uses she doesn't pay attention to what she is doing.

But as I believe you stated earlier it has never been about better photography. To the puplic its about perceived convenience, supposed savings and instant gratification.

[MovieStuff]

Roger, I agree with most everything you said, except for these comments. The state of the art for commercial color printing from either color negative film or from digital files exposes by laser onto RC type papers like Fuji Crystal Archive and Kodak Supra, that are then chemically processed in RA-4 chemistry. High end examples of this type of system are the Fuji Frontier and the Cymbolic Sciences Lightjet printers. Low-end drugstore optical scanner/optical enlarging with RA-4 processing is still the most common type of commercial printing from color neg.

About 7 years ago my wife worked in a very high end lab that dealt with large scale printing of graphics as well as smaller 8x10 and even 4x6 imaging and they long ago started replacing their chemical based printers with dye or inkjet printers. They have only one chemical based digital printer left and hardly ever use it unless the client insists. I know of a handful of local minilabs that use ink jet technology exclusively and that is gaining more and more acceptance as time goes on. So, yes, there are still quite a few labs that print digitally onto chemical based papers but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether the trend will sustain chemical based papers and, clearly, it will not.

Inkjet is used predominantly by home printers and professional printers that print in relatively small volume. Inkjet printing has gotten very good in terms of photo-realism and archival quality (for high end printers starting with the Epson 2200 a couple of years ago, and many more since then), but it arguably still isn't at the quality level of a Lightjet print or Fuji Frontier print.

I disagree. We reprinted a negative to 18x24 on our new $1500 HP inkjet printer and it was actually better than the expensive Fuji Frontier and Lamda prints we had made prior on photographic paper at a local custom lab about a year or two ago. The professional ink jet market is advancing faster than the digital still camera market, I feel, because it is a controlled application where user interface is limited and results are more predictable.

At any rate, I believe we are simply talking about differences in how the photographic paper industry is dying and not whether or not it actually is.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[MovieStuff]

Movestuff wrote

Not at all. Point and shoot film cameras are easy for some and hard for others. Digital cameras are easy for everyone. That is the important difference.

I beg to differ on this one point. Shooting a picture with a point and shot film or digital camera is about the same. The differance is after the shot film users take out the roll of film get prints and they are done. Digital users hook up to a computer, download, then print there pictures.

Yes but, all things being equal at a minimum, people just have to go home to get their digital prints (assuming that everyone wants prints and that they need prints of all their shots.) as opposed to driving to the minilab, then going home and then going back to the minilab and back home again.

Logic dictates that more people are going to have problems with the digital process than simply dropping a roll of film off.

Do you really think so? I mean, there really is no elusive "digital process". You just put paper in the printer and hit the "print" button. It's as easy as making a photo copy and is often done on the very same machine that they make photo copies on.

Now if your talking results, are you saying the digital users are getting more good shots per session? Highly unlikely as this is much more to do with the photographer than the equipment.

Again, I know of no one that has any problem using digital cameras or making digital prints but I see lots of lousy film based imagery from disatisfied people that feel they wasted their money on the processing. It is highly likely that they are shooting just as many bad shots digitally but they know right away they are bad and can shoot again. So I would say they do come back with more usable prints per session because they know if what they shot is good and it is so cheap to shoot everything in sight that the sheer volume of shots means there will something usable and the rest can be dumped. Expensive to do that with film.

But as I believe you stated earlier it has never been about better photography. To the puplic its about perceived convenience, supposed savings and instant gratification.

Exactly. The term "easier", when applied to digital, isn't about that split second when you press the button. It applies to the entire digital workflow.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Inkjet is used predominantly by home printers......

This is really the heart of the matter. Every person that starts printing their digital photos at home is one less customer for the local minilab, regardless of what the lab uses to print with. And inkjet printers at home are cheap, cheap, cheap. The companies make their money on the ink jet cartridges and not the machine. If Kodak wants a piece of the action, they would be wise to get out of photographic papers and into ink jet cartridge production. That's where the money is at.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[downix]

Actually Roger, Kodak is getting into it. Kodak already has 4 printers on the market, with newer models coming out. The picture quality is actually one of the best I've delt with for the 4x6 printers, and the cost per-print is better than everyone else I've delt with. Kodak needs to come out with a competitively priced 8x10 printer now.

[Uppsala BildTeknik]

I don´t get your measures for a printer, but the only printers that I see as interesting are the A3+ printers, a good A3+ printer with a lot of separate inkcartridges that are cheap and have a good archival lifetime is the way to go.

A3+ is 33x48 cm.

[downix]

@Uppsala

That's what I'm talking about, an A3 printer.