Kodak Today

[sunshine51]

Kodak has had severe problems staying in business over the past few years,

however, they are still around. Making motion picture film and conducting

R & D of new stuff....Read below for the rest of the story...

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/business/at-kodak-clinging-to-a-future-beyond-film.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&ncid=newsltushpmg00000003

[arunsakda]

Last week I saw a Chinese tourist loading film into a camera.

[FracturedRabbit]

Many people still loading film into cameras. I have more film cameras than digital. Film is easy to find and there are labs in Bangkok that will develop to a high standard; or you can do it yourself.

[sunshine51]

There's heaps of photogs who only shoot film in this digital age.

When a digital copy is needed the neg or transparancy is simply

scanned then transmitted. As FR stated...film is easy to find &

have processed & printed.

It's just a shame Kodachrome is gone for good though....

[Thailaw]

There's heaps of photogs who only shoot film in this digital age.

When a digital copy is needed the neg or transparancy is simply

scanned then transmitted. As FR stated...film is easy to find &

have processed & printed.

It's just a shame Kodachrome is gone for good though....

There are still people who listen to vinyl and people that shoot with film, but not enough to keep a major company in business. The ease and convenience of digital far outweighs any perceived quality difference for almost everyone. Times have changes, and as far as music and photographs are concerned it is clearly for the better.

[FracturedRabbit]

It's not about "quality". And "better" IQ doesn't mean that the experience of photography is necessarily also better.

Shooting with a film camera, especially an old one, is a very different experience to shooting digital. My 84 year old Leica has no built-in focus mechanism, no way of measuring exposure, a fixed ISO as defined by the film and a very limited shutter speed range. This means it is a challenge to shoot with! I have to really look at the light and evaluate what settings would be appropriate. I have to estimate the distance to the subject; and then set up the camera to take the shot. It's slow, considered and, to me, a very rewarding process; so different from the ease of a modern digital camera.

Having finished a film, you can just send it off to be processed; or there is additional entertainment to be had in developing it yourself; either with standard chemicals or with weird concoctions such as Caffenol (Instant coffee, Vitamin C and washing soda; smells disgusting, surprisingly effective).

An analogy would be a modern car. Stuffed with features, it can get you where you want to go in speed, safety and comfort. But there is no denying the charm and challenge of making the same journey in an ancient motor.

[sunshine51]

There's heaps of photogs who only shoot film in this digital age.

When a digital copy is needed the neg or transparancy is simply

scanned then transmitted. As FR stated...film is easy to find &

have processed & printed.

It's just a shame Kodachrome is gone for good though....

There are still people who listen to vinyl and people that shoot with film, but not enough to keep a major company in business. The ease and convenience of digital far outweighs any perceived quality difference for almost everyone. Times have changes, and as far as music and photographs are concerned it is clearly for the better.

TL...I must say that I completely disagree with you. Why?

For starters...both film & digital have their advantages & disadvantages. Main advantage

to digital photography...it's immediate and in your face. Main disadvantage...these days

"the camera lies" ; in other words so much can be changed in post processing that I demand

an original "card" be saved or submitted as a means of verifying the image which will be

published...just in case legal issues arise at a later date...or an unedited RAW image be saved

complete with all camera/shot data in the metadata. The "original" image can be transmited

at a later time when things are not so busy...in the case of news or feature work.

With film..you cannot "doctor" the image which appears on the negative or transparancy without

making it bloody obvious the thing has been messed with. In my business you submit an image

plus the negative/transparancy & they better match or you never work in the biz again, anywhere.

In these digital days you submit a RAW or RAW copy...unedited. If, on a rare occasion we take

a jpeg, you will still have to submit the camera original jpeg which shows all metadata. If the data

doesn't match...we don't take your pic. Simple as that. Plus we do have excellent software which

easily let's us know, to a reasonable approximation, how many times the pic has been "Shopped".

If major factors in the image have been changed, such as heads swapped or people added/removed,

you will never work in the business again, anywhere. You just cannot "shop" a neg or tranny without

being caught out. Photo agencies these days must protect themselves & we do it rather well.

Mind you simple edit/colour correction, fix blacks & blown out highlights are acceptable along with

other minor edits...but a major redo od a file just don't cut it...especially in the news & current

affairs arena which is where I work.

If you read the NYT article you will understand that these days Kodak is nowhere near what it used

to be however they still have a very active and advanced R & D facility plus they still make and

develop (not process...more like invent) some of the best motion picture film on this planet and

most motion pictures today are still shot on film. They may be digitised for released but they're

mostly still shot on film.

If digial imaging "far outweighs any perceived quality difference" as you stated, why do

so many software developers make plugins so your digital image can look like film and also,

please refer to the above words about Kodak INC. Digital is good...but...it's not the be all &

end all yet.

I kinda like vinyl...as I know I'm much older than you and grew up with it..pops, hiss, cracks

& all. Digital music has mainly made it easier to share music these days via the web, legally

or not legally. I won't get into digital recording of music for reasons of length however...it enables

a much better quality of sound to edit/post produce than analogue ever did.

Analogue is by no means dead...not by a long shot.

Edited April 17, 2015 by sunshine51

[sunshine51]

It's not about "quality". And "better" IQ doesn't mean that the experience of photography is necessarily also better.

Shooting with a film camera, especially an old one, is a very different experience to shooting digital. My 84 year old Leica has no built-in focus mechanism, no way of measuring exposure, a fixed ISO as defined by the film and a very limited shutter speed range. This means it is a challenge to shoot with! I have to really look at the light and evaluate what settings would be appropriate. I have to estimate the distance to the subject; and then set up the camera to take the shot. It's slow, considered and, to me, a very rewarding process; so different from the ease of a modern digital camera.

Having finished a film, you can just send it off to be processed; or there is additional entertainment to be had in developing it yourself; either with standard chemicals or with weird concoctions such as Caffenol (Instant coffee, Vitamin C and washing soda; smells disgusting, surprisingly effective).

An analogy would be a modern car. Stuffed with features, it can get you where you want to go in speed, safety and comfort. But there is no denying the charm and challenge of making the same journey in an ancient motor.

Outta likes FR...

[ETatBKK]

I must admitted that the 'digital age' welcome a lot of new audience who could also experience the fun of imaging, no doubt. everyday we see people having fun of taking photo with their DSLR, compact digital camera, even smartphone camera, and they do a very good job. this is perhaps the very positive change and brings photography to everyone.

in the way, this new audience enjoys a certain spectrum of experiences in photography. even there are new experiences we never think of it just a decade ago; just for example - instant sharing photos with friends over a distance. yet, they may miss the sensation of taking and processing the image.

nevertheless, there are some fundamental substances with photography - the moment ( or the story ), the light ( and the shadow ) and the physics ( of course also the chemistry ), and they will be there for ever. well, to enjoy the experience of photography, it is not necessary for everyone to understand these technical concepts; yet there are still sizeable audiences around it.

TL made a good analogy between digital sound and vinyl music. it is a matter of choice in different part of the spectrum.

enjoy taking photo anyway !

[ETatBKK]

If you read the NYT article you will understand that these days Kodak is nowhere near what it used

to be however they still have a very active and advanced R & D facility plus they still make and

develop (not process...more like invent) some of the best motion picture film on this planet and

most motion pictures today are still shot on film. They may be digitised for released but they're

mostly still shot on film.

KODAK ( and Fujifilm if you like ), they had consumer market and professional market. indeed the consumer market is gone forever; yet the professional market, especially those for the motion picture industry is still there.

one 35mm film roll for motion picture is 122m ( or 400 feet ) long. guess how much meters you need for a 15 minutes film production; perhaps too much film for any photographer-for-life.

professionals today still shooting with film, then process and scan the image into digital format. no kidding.

If digial imaging "far outweighs any perceived quality difference" as you stated, why do

so many software developers make plugins so your digital image can look like film and also,

please refer to the above words about Kodak INC. Digital is good...but...it's not the be all &

end all yet.

today's Photoshop, is actually a replicate of yesterday's darkroom. see the 'before photoshop' discussion here :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/805167-before-photoshop/?p=9139238&hl=%2Bphotoshop

[Thailaw]

There's heaps of photogs who only shoot film in this digital age.

When a digital copy is needed the neg or transparancy is simply

scanned then transmitted. As FR stated...film is easy to find &

have processed & printed.

It's just a shame Kodachrome is gone for good though....

There are still people who listen to vinyl and people that shoot with film, but not enough to keep a major company in business. The ease and convenience of digital far outweighs any perceived quality difference for almost everyone. Times have changes, and as far as music and photographs are concerned it is clearly for the better.

TL...I must say that I completely disagree with you. Why?

For starters...both film & digital have their advantages & disadvantages. Main advantage

to digital photography...it's immediate and in your face. Main disadvantage...these days

"the camera lies" ; in other words so much can be changed in post processing that I demand

an original "card" be saved or submitted as a means of verifying the image which will be

published...just in case legal issues arise at a later date...or an unedited RAW image be saved

complete with all camera/shot data in the metadata. The "original" image can be transmited

at a later time when things are not so busy...in the case of news or feature work.

.................

If you read the NYT article you will understand that these days Kodak is nowhere near what it used

to be however they still have a very active and advanced R & D facility plus they still make and

develop (not process...more like invent) some of the best motion picture film on this planet and

most motion pictures today are still shot on film. They may be digitised for released but they're

mostly still shot on film.

If digial imaging "far outweighs any perceived quality difference" as you stated, why do

so many software developers make plugins so your digital image can look like film and also,

please refer to the above words about Kodak INC. Digital is good...but...it's not the be all &

end all yet.

I kinda like vinyl...as I know I'm much older than you and grew up with it..pops, hiss, cracks

& all. Digital music has mainly made it easier to share music these days via the web, legally

or not legally. I won't get into digital recording of music for reasons of length however...it enables

a much better quality of sound to edit/post produce than analogue ever did.

Analogue is by no means dead...not by a long shot.

To each his own.... You see your camera as an instrument; I see my camera as a tool. I want to devote my time "focusing" on the subject, perspective, light, etc, and not so much on camera measurements and adjustments. Some of my best pictures have been taken in fully auto mode. And I am very good at "photo shopping" poor, overly dark pictures with weak contract and making them into lovely pictures, which is important for "once in a lifetime" moments and children's expressions that melt your heart. And I enjoy making a silk purse out of a sow's ear. It is the end result that I care about and not so much how I get there. And I enjoy sharing my pictures with family and friends, and digital is amazingly easy and cheap to do that.

But, that you enjoy the "art" of picture taking (not picture making) is wonderful. Keep at it and enjoy it! Life is a journey with many roads to travel -- we are on different paths, but hopefully enjoyable for both of us.

Kodak, Polaroid (remember them?), Border Books and many newspapers and record companies who could not/did not adapt have met their demise as a result of digital Darwinism. All-in-all a good process and a wonderful result. And it is good that people like you can still enjoy their art, with perhaps a bit more difficulty and cost, but still available for those that want it and will pay for it. Good luck!

[sunshine51]

^^^ We see things differently...as it should be!

[northernphil]

Not sure if i am in the right place here but last night I wanted to take a sunset pic. and my camera , an EasyShare z1015 IS has stopped working . I just get a blank screen , It is not the LED as I can scroll through all previous pics. The battery is fully charged and lots more memory. Any ideas out there or should i send off to somewhere for fixing ?

[sunshine51]

^^^ NP...I'm not familiar with the make of your camera other than it's a Kodak camera.

Try to send it off or take it to a camera shop near you to see if it can be repaired.

Good luck. Where do you live btw?

[northernphil]

^^^ NP...I'm not familiar with the make of your camera other than it's a Kodak camera.

Try to send it off or take it to a camera shop near you to see if it can be repaired.

Good luck. Where do you live btw?

Hey sunshine 1 That was quick. Er the make is Kodak ,looks like a proper camera not a credit card. I live north of C/Rai and I bought it in Big Camera in Big C about 7 years ago. Up to now has been a very good camera but I don't want to replace over some silly little chip inside. Go to Kodak 1015 IS . Cheers Phil.

[sunshine51]

Phil...that's the problem today with PnS cameras...even the more advanced models

regardless of manufacturer....you may & usually will have to replace it with a newer

model as the cost of repair may be more than the replacement. If...it can be

repaired at all. Try Big Camera & see what they can do first....then make your decision.

Good Luck.

[FracturedRabbit]

If you read the NYT article you will understand that these days Kodak is nowhere near what it used

to be however they still have a very active and advanced R & D facility plus they still make and

develop (not process...more like invent) some of the best motion picture film on this planet and

most motion pictures today are still shot on film. They may be digitised for released but they're

mostly still shot on film.

KODAK ( and Fujifilm if you like ), they had consumer market and professional market. indeed the consumer market is gone forever; yet the professional market, especially those for the motion picture industry is still there.

one 35mm film roll for motion picture is 122m ( or 400 feet ) long. guess how much meters you need for a 15 minutes film production; perhaps too much film for any photographer-for-life.

professionals today still shooting with film, then process and scan the image into digital format. no kidding.

If digial imaging "far outweighs any perceived quality difference" as you stated, why do

so many software developers make plugins so your digital image can look like film and also,

please refer to the above words about Kodak INC. Digital is good...but...it's not the be all &

end all yet.

today's Photoshop, is actually a replicate of yesterday's darkroom. see the 'before photoshop' discussion here :

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/805167-before-photoshop/?p=9139238&hl=%2Bphotoshop

"professionals today still shooting with film, then process and scan the image into digital format. no kidding."

Amateurs too. In fact I suspect there are more people shooting film for fun than "professionals".

[fimgirl]

Actually the current trend is to shoot film, wet print and then digitise the print to expand the DR and retain the tonal range. Film was never meant to be digitised (obviously). It's an interim medium to the final element of a print where it's full tonal range is best displayed. Digital software that attempts to replicate true film is farcical and just a gimmick.

If you want the film look, then shoot it. That's the only way you'll see "the difference". I'm not saying "better", just "different".

Edited June 22, 2015 by fimgirl

[rhythmworx]

20 minutes left to decide whether or not to buy a MF TLR camera (Mamiya C330 Pro S). I've wanted one for a while and trying my best to resist but from the many photos I've browsed shot with the same camera and either the 80 or 135 Sekor lens's on various film like Portra VC, Velvia , Ektachrome, Tri-x etc...It's hard not to push the button.

Digital doesn't compare IMO there's something magical missing, Alienskin Exposure can replicate some film but it's not the same even if I did have a D4 or 1X, It's just more cost economical the way my eyes see it.

I know cock all about processing film, but would sure love to learn. I can see why old school photographers always rant on about film, at 1st I just presumed they were resistant to change.

I now think otherwise...

http://www.flickriver.com/search/Mamiya+C330+Professional+S/

[rhythmworx]

Actually having said that I'm on the beers and digital is nice too, far more convienient too, feel free to comment if you wish, meanwhile I is off to the chippy as I can't be bothered cooking tonight.

However I will never listen to that digitally re-mastered Hendrix garbage on CD, I prefer the vinyl or cassette how it originally sounded.

[sunshine51]

^^^ RW...Go on...buy the Mamiya...especially if it's in good condition & the glass is good.

If the price is right of course. There's heaps of learning aids on the internet concerning

processing...have a Google!

[northernphil]

Phil...that's the problem today with PnS cameras...even the more advanced models

regardless of manufacturer....you may & usually will have to replace it with a newer

model as the cost of repair may be more than the replacement. If...it can be

repaired at all. Try Big Camera & see what they can do first....then make your decision.

Good Luck.

Thanks , yes I think that is about my only option. They will likely say it was 7 years old time I replaced it. I suppose 10,000B over 7 years is ok but should be fixable. This is a recent pic and as you can see it did take good pics.