Kodak says film & services sinking faster than expected.

[timdrage]

When a photo fades, you still have a faded version of the image.

When CDR dyes fade, you have a round mirror with a hole in the middle.

[Angus]

When a photo fades, you still have a faded version of the image.

When CDR dyes fade, you have a round mirror with a hole in the middle.

When a photo fades....you still have the negative.

Chances are when that CDR fades you won't have a backup copy of the data....or can't read whatever format it's in.

[matt5791]

I would suggest that the film market is set to always exist, but become much more niche.

It is highly possible that Kodak will sell its film making operations to a more niche business to continue on a smaller scale, provided (if) they sort out their other activities.

Kodak had the classic case of maintaining the status quo for too lond, sailing along happily making a profit, but not changing and any company that does not change usually dies. Now they have realised very late in the day and have lost all direction. I would guess they are being run by various accountants and management consultants - thie would explain the ever increasing costs of their film products - classic pure accountant decisions: Sales volume down = put prices up

Has anyone seen just how much more expensive Kodak still emulsions are compared to Fuji at present!! Average price for pack for Velvia 120 roll film £13. Kodak E100 £18.

No wonder sales are down, they are hastening their own demise.

Matt

[Angus]

We know film isn't going to disappear altogether, there are millions of 35mm and other cameras out there in the hands of enthusiasts and pros who will keep film alive....but it will increasingly be a niche - even if it is a rather large niche akin to vinyl records.

But Kodak's bean counters won't be satisfied with being a niche company making a small but reliable profit...they're still thinking they can Kodak can continue as a behemoth-sized manufacturer of cameras and photographic products. They may well be wrong. Kodak missed out on the digital boom, whereas traditional photo companies such as Canon, Fuji, Nikon and others did not...and companies not previously greatly associated with photographic equipment such as Casio and Samsung have benefited.

Now that camera market has died down, after all how often do people buy a new camera? Those who wanted to buy their first camera, or change from film to digital have mostly now done so...to make a push into the digi market now is ill-advised. Kodak's high spec pro digital cameras could have grabbed a share of that market, but somehow failed to impress - probably because Kodak's reputation as a camera manufacturer hasn't been good among serious photographers for decades.

It's called resting on your laurels.

[MovieStuff]

Now that camera market has died down, after all how often do people buy a new camera?

More than ever since people are keen on upgrading to the next resolution digital camera. That is the most important commercial difference between digital cameras compared to film cameras. You buy a 35mm still camera and the inherent maximum resolution is already there. No need to change cameras unless you simply wanted different features. But features are not the selling point of digital still cameras; increase in resolution is, which is more tangible than features and creates a feeling of inadequacy in the potential buyer if they don't have the latest greatest digital camera with the most resolution. Digital cameras have changed the market into a pissing match where the goal is to try and get to what 35mm cameras already had. Kind of silly but shrewd, commercially.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[ccortez]

Digital cameras have changed the market into a pissing match where the goal is to try and get to what 35mm cameras already had. Kind of silly but shrewd, commercially.

Meanwhile, I search ebay for a truly fine deal on a beautiful Alpa that somebody is pushing aside for some ugly plastic 11 megapixel gadget. :twisted:

[reflex]

Digital cameras have changed the market into a pissing match where the goal is to try and get to what 35mm cameras already had. Kind of silly but shrewd, commercially.

Well put!

Consumers seem very vulnerable to numeric comparisons.

We've been trained to shop for cars based on engine displacement, HP, and torque. "Bigger = better"

Computer manufacturers got themselves into trouble because people believe faster clock speeds = better, even with radically different processor designs.

And on the weekend, an acquaintance of mine was talking about buying his first digital camera. He was shocked that my wife still had a three year-old 3.2MP model. "How can you get by with less that 7 megapixel, these days?" he demanded.

He doesn't know the role that good optics, fast dsp, metering algorithms, and file compression have on picture quality, and wouldn't recognize good picture quality if it fell on him. But he will buy the first 7MP camera he finds discounted 50% in the next Best Buy flyer.

It'll probably have a Kodak nameplate, and be manufactured by a Taiwanese OEM like BENQ.

[mercyboy]

Actually, with film you have one original, and that's it, forever. With digital, as soon as I send the email files, CDs, and DVDs out to family and friends, I have just performed a massive, distributed off site storage operation. My house can burn down, all my drives crash, NYC can fall off the face of the earth, but I can still make a call to a relative or friend and get a copy back fast. Crashes and scratches are only a worry to those who are lazy and never backup or distribute. Don't feel sorry for them or decry ditigal because of that, since these people would have never even been taking photos if not for the ease of digital. And as hard as it is to believe, many of these people don't care about the ultimate fate of their photos after the initial joy of viewing them. They just move on.

Even the argument about digital storage decaying over time is silly. Just this month I made new copies of many of my CD backups, but only this time I copied them to DVD data discs and just cut back the amont of plastic I need to story by nearly 10-to-1!!! Digital media is stepping-stone storage. You need to redo it every decade or so, and by then, there is a much better storage medium available and the path is still new enough that conversion is simple. This same concept needs to be applied to the actual file formats used as well. No file format just disappears instantly, but they do evolve, and the migration path between two formats (older and newer) is temporary and should be used when it's easy. (Think digital Workprinter Transfer Device, here...but much easier if you don't wait a few generations.)

Even when it comes to prints, I get a laugh. I use an Epson 2200 and love it. But my pal who has the same printer, pays big bucks for expensive inks that are supposed to last a few hundred years. And I'm like; "DORK, JUST MAKE A NEW PRINT EVERY FEW YEARS!!!" You can't beat that..same exact file info, but fresh ink and new paper...maybe even better ink and better paper! But really, when it's time to make a new print, I usually have a different photo I want to put into the frame to shake the decor up a bit, and just tear up the old one because who needs it when I still have the original file on hand?

And that leads to another point; how long does anything need to really last. We all want to be remembered forever, yes, but who is really going to care about those photos of us at the backyard BBQ in a few hundred years? Who's even going to be able to remember who we are to recognize us in the photos? I've got clients now who can't even ID half the people in the photos they took yesterday!

As for Kodak, it's a brand name. Like Polaroid. The name is worth more than anything else, so to think they'd stick that name to a parred-down film operation is wishful thinking. The other comments about Kodak branded DVDs and other things is EXACTLY what will eventually happen. It's just a name, folks, like TRUMP.

[namke]

More than ever since people are keen on upgrading to the next resolution digital camera.

Well, maybe... There was a far bigger surge in sales when people were moving from film to digital - sales outlets like Jessops here in the UK were reporting greatly reduced sales earlier this year now nearly everyone has 'gone digital'. Personally, I'm still happy with my Canon Powershot A40 for general 'snaps' - a mere 2 megapixel camera. Although after the recent discussion here about other small-formats, I've got a mind to pick up a half-frame camera .

It's weird (and this is a personal thought only) - using film tends to make me more careful about pressing the shutter release - it's very easy to take lots and lots of pictures/video with digital technology, because you can simply delete/rewind and record over bad shots - hence I have lots of shots on my computer (and gigabytes of DV files)! They don't have quite the emotional connection. Maybe it's an age thing!!

john..

[reflex]

It's weird (and this is a personal thought only) - using film tends to make me more careful about pressing the shutter release

And you know what? You probably get more good pictures that if you'd been snapping fistfuls of digital shots.

I think part of it is that modern SLRs have good viewfinders and there is no shutter lag. Press the button and CLICK. And I can hold the button down and keep shooting at about 3fps until I run out of film or battery - No waiting for images to save.

[mercyboy]

I totally agree with Roger on the churn rate for digital cameras. It's will be a constant untill the defacto resolution meets or exceeds the ultimate display format (print or high resolution screen viewing) and further "upgrades" offer nothing valuable for the average user. My father kept one 35mm camera throughout my childhood and then some. In the past 5 years, he's owned 3 digital cameras and now wants to buy a new one again. At least we always know what to get him for the holidays! Even when the technology matures, though, some other imaging device will come along and start it all over again! This is NOT a bad thing. It's time on fast-forward. Evolution on speed! The alternative is to slow the pace and get your kicks every hundred years by watching automobiles slowly supplant horse-drawn carriages. (Yawn.)

I just wonder where all the batteries are going! Into my water supply? Blech.

[christoph]

I think part of it is that modern SLRs have good viewfinders and there is no shutter lag. Press the button and CLICK. And I can hold the button down and keep shooting at about 3fps until I run out of film or battery - No waiting for images to save.

i prefer film to digi cameras as well, but common, be fair...

modern DSLRs have no noticable shutter delay and easily do 3fps for like 15pics!

++ christoph ++

[MovieStuff]

modern DSLRs have no noticable shutter delay and easily do 3fps for like 15pics!

Agreed. We have one of the Canon Rebels and it is terrific. Just like using an SLR, complete with TTL viewing, etc. We love it and never really shoot 35mm at all any more.

Roger
http://www.moviestuff.tv

[vapparn]

This spring I had to decide between MF FSLR and DSLR and uuh... I went film. I very much like digi, no problem with that, but when it comes to large prints and top quality, it would have been too expensive (for me) to go digital. And what I mean by large? Prints like 60cmX80cm, 90X90, 100X100. I'm quite sure that after a few years it will be a different situation.

On the other hand, 120 film has been here around 100 years or so and it ain't propably going nowhere. I think the question is what will happen to film companies... market is small, many has to go.

Kodak HAS to find new markets and new products, just like f. ex. Nikon did. But Nikon didn't forget film either, they have new F6.

[tlatosmd]

You buy a 35mm still camera and the inherent maximum resolution is already there.

Excuse me, but isn't the chemical equivalent of digital resolution made of three variables (ignoring optics and anything else as we only refer to the recording or capturing medium itself), one being the initial format size, the other two being in the emulsion, i. e. grain and sharpness?