View Full Version : Film Not Dead Yet, Says Kodak - Introduces Film SLR
bmattock
03-06-2008, 05:07
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/plans_for_kodakbranded_35mm_filmbased_slr_camera_u nveiled_vivitar_signs_twoyear_deal_to_make_kodak_f ilm_cameras_news_196274.html?aff=rss
When I read this, I thought it was April 1. Seriously.
Plans for Kodak-branded SLR unveiled
Plans for Kodak-branded 35mm film-based SLR camera unveiled; Vivitar signs two-year deal to make Kodak film cameras
Thursday 6th March 2008
Chris Cheesman
Kodak-branded film compacts will continue for least another two years after the firm signed a new licensing deal with Vivitar which is also planning to manufacture a Kodak-branded 35mm SLR camera.
'Vivitar has plans to develop a Kodak SLR camera similar to the Vivitar V3000s,' said Vivitar UK CEO Abbas Bhanji who added: 'The planned KV100 is, at the moment, at the development stages and once released will be aimed at educational institutes who specialise in traditional photography.'
Now, just FYI, the Vivitar V3000s is made, as are most Vivitar SLRs, by Cosina. So this is the Bessaflex TM in different livery. No idea what the lens mount will be, but I'd be willing to bet it will be a standard Pentax P/KA.
Initial predictions of the death of film have been somewhat premature, according to Joel Proegler, general manager of Film Capture at Eastman Kodak who told us: 'Kodak has focused on the digital message for the past four years. As we come out of that transition, one thing is very clear: film is a very profitable part of the business'.
No doubt Kodak continues to make money from the sale of film. Mostly, as has been argued here, from movie film. And the amount of money they make has been dropping like a stone, 30% or more year-on-year. So this statement seems odd to me.
Having achieved success in India, Kodak is now planning to exploit the growing economy in China.
This totally flabbergasts me. China is going digital as fast as their feet can carry them. Workers enter the middle class, get a TV and a cell phone and a digital camera. No film. Lucky Film in China was recently cast loose from Kodak, at a huge loss for Kodak, pennies on the dollar. Their entire China management team were given the sack several years ago for the billions of dollars they poured into film manufacturing in China in a race with Fujifilm, which turned out to be a spectacular boondoggle. And NOW they think, as they did in 2003, that China's market is ripe for photographic film sales? Are they mad?
I am still waiting for someone to report this story a hoax. But here you go. For whatever it may be worth...
Interesting. Thanks Bill.
oftheherd
03-06-2008, 05:30
You're right Bill, that is both interesting and strange. Why sign with Vivitar as opposed to Cosina? Do they think they need the Vivitar brand for strength, that Kodak isn't strong enough? Hmmm, maybe they are right. Not everybody knows enough about Vivitar to consider them a compediter, much less Cosina. Will be interesting to watch. I can't believe they haven't already picked a production camera with some cosmetic differences.
Come to think of it, when was the last time Kodak put out anything other than a throw away?
I suppose it makes sense for film manufacturers to make film cameras if no one else will. But why would you buy this camera new when you could probably buy a far superior second hand canon or nikon Pro SLR for near enough the same price?
BillBingham2
03-06-2008, 05:54
Did they not have a big blurb about Leica a few weeks back? I wonder who at Vivitar will be shown the door shortly?
B2 (;->
drewbarb
03-06-2008, 05:57
I suppose it makes sense for film manufacturers to make film cameras if no one else will. But why would you buy this camera new when you could probably buy a far superior second hand canon or nikon Pro SLR for near enough the same price?
Good question. Maybe they are counting on customers not knowing any better? Marketing people all too often neglect to consider the possibility that their target customers have any brains at all.
bmattock
03-06-2008, 06:34
You're right Bill, that is both interesting and strange. Why sign with Vivitar as opposed to Cosina? Do they think they need the Vivitar brand for strength, that Kodak isn't strong enough? Hmmm, maybe they are right. Not everybody knows enough about Vivitar to consider them a compediter, much less Cosina. Will be interesting to watch. I can't believe they haven't already picked a production camera with some cosmetic differences.
Come to think of it, when was the last time Kodak put out anything other than a throw away?
Well, in the digital realm, they did the very excellent digital SLR cameras based on Nikon and Canon bodies, but in the film world...
I have seen some "Kodak" branded no-name AF zoom lenses, really badly done, plastic everything, even the mounts - for other brands too, such as Pentax and Nikon mount. Why? I have no idea. Some wonk at Kodak hopefully got the sack for that nonsense - they sure dropped that campaign quickly in any case.
I am at a loss as to why they did not go directly to Cosina. They must know that Vivitar doesn't actually manufacture anything - they'll just farm the job out to Cosina.
Part of me wants to believe this - the other part of me is still screaming 'hoax'!
myoptic3
03-06-2008, 06:35
I'm all for new film cameras, but why a SLR? Probably because they are cheap to design and manufacture, compared to RF cameras. I see this as just another inept, ill thought out move by what was once a great company but is now totally out of touch w/ the photography enthusiast. Or the consumer market for that matter. I am in no hurry to own a Kodak branded Vivitar camera, and no one else is either. Someone better buy Kodak and save them from totally self destructing in front of our very eyes.
George S.
03-06-2008, 06:48
Don't you get it? There's no design involved here. No start-up capital needed. They're just going to sell the Vivitar (Cosina) SLRs that have been out for at least 10-15 years under model names like "2000" "3000" and "3300".
bmattock
03-06-2008, 06:50
Don't you get it? There's no design involved here. No start-up capital needed. They're just going to sell the Vivitar (Cosina) SLRs that have been out for at least 10-15 years under model names like "2000" "3000" and "3300".
The question is, who is going to buy it? The article says they expect to sell it in India, where film is apparently still a big seller. Could be, I have no idea what the Indian market looks like.
But it seems to me like quite an odd move for Kodak.
NickTrop
03-06-2008, 06:51
The Vivitar 3000S is my SLR since 1990-ish. It's a fine camera, it's held up well, works as new, nice and light and compact, never saw a reason to buy another (though I've been tempted). A K-mart special I bought for $100 -ish with a decent 50 then and I still use it today. Digital cameras are overpriced. Hundreds of dollars, then you need a computer, inks, papers, limited to iso 200 usually... A DSLR kit will still cost you $1000 US on the low end when all is said and done. Then you need the computer, printer, and software... I doubt there are "kiosks" for this sort of thing in the rural areas of China yet.
The "price of entry" for digital is high for an emerging economy. Hell, it's high for me. Also, perhaps those cultures aren't "trained" yet to waste money on items that are billed as "the latest and greatest" but offer no real performance or price gains - just get you to take money out of your wallet and put it into the manufacturers. Maybe China isn't "trained" yet to chase megapixel and don't get "spec drunk" yet. They'll learn (eventually).
Kodak knows what it's doing.
bmattock
03-06-2008, 07:00
The Vivitar 3000S is my SLR since 1990-ish. It's a fine camera, it's held up well, works as new, nice and light and compact, never saw a reason to buy another (though I've been tempted). A K-mart special I bought for $100 -ish with a decent 50 then and I still use it today. Digital cameras are overpriced. Hundreds of dollars, then you need a computer, inks, papers, limited to iso 200 usually... A DSLR kit will still cost you $1000 US on the low end when all is said and done. Then you need the computer, printer, and software... I doubt there are "kiosks" for this sort of thing in the rural areas of China yet.
The "price of entry" for digital is high for an emerging economy. Hell, it's high for me. Also, perhaps those cultures aren't "trained" yet to was money on items that are billed as "the latest and greatest" but offer no real performance or price gains - just get you to take money out of your wallet and put it into the manufacturers. Maybe China isn't "trained" yet to chase megapixel and don't get "spec drunk" yet. They'll learn (eventually).
Kodak knows what it's doing.
The Vivitar series of SLR cameras - made by Cosina - are fine, basic, SLRs. Not made to the same standard as the Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, and Pentaxes of yore, but quite acceptable. I have several myself, from different eras. I have a Vivitar 400/SL - a hulking giant metal M42 monster. A Vivitar v2000, which is so basic I seldom take it out. A Vivitar XV-3, which has AE (aperture priority) which I like, nice compact metal-bodied camera that.
I also have some of the Cosina clones made for other companies. My favorite is the Canon T-60. Mounts all my FD glass, works a treat, AE (stop-down) with my M42 lenses on an M42->FD adapter plate. My only beef with it is that it is so lightweight, the older heavy FD lenses tip it over and make the balance all wonky. With the later black FDn mount lenses, it is fine.
I also have a Bessaflex TM (the silver one). I bought it because I wanted one modern M42 body with metering I could really trust. It's been a great camera so far. One of the few cameras I have spent more than a few dollars on.
Photo Village sells this one:
http://www.photovillage.com/html/vsl43.html
Which amazes me, since you can buy the exact same thing with a Vivitar brand on it - or Quantaray, or Dakota, or etc, etc, for about ten dollars on eBay if you're patient.
As to whether or not Kodak is being smart...I dunno. I guess we'll see if this is a good idea or not. I'm willing to entertain the thought that it might be a clever idea.
It seems a reasonable move. Outside the bigger cities, I'm not sure that India has the infrastructure to support all the things that are required for full-on digital photography, like cable-based broadband internet access and even reliable electricity supply (well it didn't when I visited a few years ago).
So film isn't quite dead after all. Good.
There should also be an market for a low-priced SLR among thousads of college students in the US who take intro photography courses. It is virtually impossible these days to walk into a photo store and buy a manual SLR. The used market does not work for everyone. Some people still prefer to buy new and with a warranty.
aparat
The Vivitar 3000S is my SLR since 1990-ish. It's a fine camera, it's held up well, works as new, nice and light and compact, never saw a reason to buy another (though I've been tempted). A K-mart special I bought for $100 -ish with a decent 50 then and I still use it today. Digital cameras are overpriced. Hundreds of dollars, then you need a computer, inks, papers, limited to iso 200 usually... A DSLR kit will still cost you $1000 US on the low end when all is said and done. Then you need the computer, printer, and software... I doubt there are "kiosks" for this sort of thing in the rural areas of China yet.
The "price of entry" for digital is high for an emerging economy. Hell, it's high for me. Also, perhaps those cultures aren't "trained" yet to waste money on items that are billed as "the latest and greatest" but offer no real performance or price gains - just get you to take money out of your wallet and put it into the manufacturers. Maybe China isn't "trained" yet to chase megapixel and don't get "spec drunk" yet. They'll learn (eventually).
Kodak knows what it's doing.
I can agree with this. The price just to keep up is high. A lot of film can be bought for the several thousand dollars it takes to buy a computer, printer, and all the software, and it's out of date when you buy the next camera.
As for 'lots of used' cameras, we're in a very small market here at RFF. Most people would be afraid of a used camera, want a warranty, where's the instruction book, what about manufacturer support, and hundreds of other reasons the general public won't buy a used camera. Just IMHO.
bmattock
03-06-2008, 07:26
I can agree with this. The price just to keep up is high. A lot of film can be bought for the several thousand dollars it takes to buy a computer, printer, and all the software, and it's out of date when you buy the next camera.
As for 'lots of used' cameras, we're in a very small market here at RFF. Most people would be afraid of a used camera, want a warranty, where's the instruction book, what about manufacturer support, and hundreds of other reasons the general public won't buy a used camera. Just IMHO.
My most recent PC was $279 from HP at Christmas. Used the same monitor I already had. No printer, because I have no use for one, and my software is all free - I run Linux. Ok, I'm wrong, I bought Vuescan in 2003. Paid $45 for it, as I recall.
I'm not dumping thousands into a PC every couple of years as the film luddites keep insisting happens. The economics strongly favor digital - they just don't want to admit it.
Use film if you prefer it - I love it and use it regularly. But I don't pretend it's cheaper than digital, because it isn't.
bottley1
03-06-2008, 07:31
film, wot dat?
Sitemistic quit to soon, he'd love this thread!
photogdave
03-06-2008, 08:08
Sounds like the educational institutes mentioned in the press release may have asked Kodak for this camera. They would already have contacts with Kodak from buying film and chemistry etc. so they probably asked for a new cheap film SLR that could be purchased in quantities.
To keep film alive we need good scanners at reasonable price and an easy way to get the film processed.
Hopefully Kodak and Fuji after introducing new cameras will cater for all the after-shooting workflow.
I am forced to keep exposed film refrigerated and take it to minilab in batches. I have a scanner by the defunct Minolta.
And I have far too many film cameras. No digital camera yet.
It seems a reasonable move. Outside the bigger cities, I'm not sure that India has the infrastructure to support all the things that are required for full-on digital photography, like cable-based broadband internet access and even reliable electricity supply (well it didn't when I visited a few years ago).
So film isn't quite dead after all. Good.
Hm, I had no problems whatsoever in countries with frequent powershortages and no internet at all, not even a telephone line.
I would have had problems to find a place to develop E6 there, even C41 was close to unavailable.
Same for clean water and reasonable constant temperatures to develop B/W.
Sounds like the educational institutes mentioned in the press release may have asked Kodak for this camera. They would already have contacts with Kodak from buying film and chemistry etc. so they probably asked for a new cheap film SLR that could be purchased in quantities.
Sounds reasonable to me, too.
They probably want their students to shoot the same camera and buy classroom sets. Else one student competes with an EOS 1v against another with a Brownie :)
Hm, I had no problems whatsoever in countries with frequent powershortages and no internet at all, not even a telephone line.
I would have had problems to find a place to develop E6 there, even C41 was close to unavailable.
Same for clean water and reasonable constant temperatures to develop B/W.
Presumably you were just visiting these countries?
I can agree with this. The price just to keep up is high. A lot of film can be bought for the several thousand dollars it takes to buy a computer, printer, and all the software, and it's out of date when you buy the next camera.
What would you want the computer for, if not to replace a lab?
I take my film to the same lab which gets my digital files, I can shoot JPEG and select the files to print there, no need for a computer and monitor.
A 1GB card holds some 200 pictures and costs 6 Euro, 8 rolls 24exp Fuji C200 at the grocers next door are some 7 Euro.
And then I save 3 Euro developing with every film, prints are the same price no matter if digital or film :)
Presumably you were just visiting these countries?
Yes, that's why I could have my slides developed at home.
I can agree with this. The price just to keep up is high. A lot of film can be bought for the several thousand dollars it takes to buy a computer, printer, and all the software, and it's out of date when you buy the next camera.
I'm sorry, but that's a ridiculous argument.
Clearly most all of us already HAVE a computer. Software is included with most digital cameras (and honestly, most don't need more than something like Elements).
My DSLR setup cost me all of $349 (Samsung GX-1S with 18-55 lens). I had the computer already. And a printer, but I usually just send it over to WalMart since it's dirt cheap to print there.
Out of date when I buy the next camera? I'm not replacing this one until it dies; just because there are ones out there with more features and more megapixels doesn't mean that mine suddenly is garbage. It took good pictures when I bought it, and unless it breaks it'll take pics just as good five years from now.
I prefer film (and shoot 90% of my stuff on it), but these types of arguments are just ridiculous. I'm not saying film is 'too expensive' because you need to run out an buy an F6 and a minilab to use it...
Yes, that's why I could have my slides developed at home.
Exactly. Which is why in countries where electricity, broadband internet access and so on are more problematic, digital doesn't offer any particular advantages over film. Whichever format you use, you have to physically send it away somewhere to get your pictures in hard copy form.
Ronald_H
03-06-2008, 09:29
There should also be an market for a low-priced SLR among thousads of college students in the US who take intro photography courses. It is virtually impossible these days to walk into a photo store and buy a manual SLR. The used market does not work for everyone. Some people still prefer to buy new and with a warranty.
aparat
Could be, but you can buy Nikon FM's by the boatload for next to nothing. Not an unimportant factor for students. If it breaks (a big if with an FM in any case) just buy another.
I'm not a student, I just love to buy great gear for little cash :D
FallisPhoto
03-06-2008, 10:00
I see this as just another inept, ill thought out move by what was once a great company but is now totally out of touch w/ the photography enthusiast. Or the consumer market for that matter.
... or even sanity and common sense. Kodak (the people who brought us fifty proprietary film formats (none of which are still in use but 110 -- all because they wanted to corner the market on film sales -- who brought us the disc camera, who brought us the 110 camera, and so on and on and on), has not been in touch with photography enthusiasts, (so far as making film cameras is concerned) since the late 50s, when they decided to take a hands-on approach with the Kodak/Nagle Retinas and ruined them. Kodak's philosophy has ALWAYS been cheap and affordable photography for the masses -- and their film cameras have pretty much always reflected that (cheap junk). The ONLY two exceptions to that I can think of are the Retina I, II, and III series (which they actually had very little to do with) and the Medallist (produced to higher standards than usual, in order to get a government contract).
bmattock
03-06-2008, 10:18
Kodak (the people who brought us fifty proprietary film formats (none of which are still in use but 110 -- all because they wanted to corner the market on film sales -- who brought us the disc camera, who brought us the 110 camera, and so on and on and on), has not been in touch with photography enthusiasts, (so far as making film cameras is concerned) since the late 50s, when they decided to take a hands-on approach with the Kodak/Nagle Retinas and ruined them.
Leaving out the run-on sentence, just to address the 'proprietary' comment. 110 film is not proprietary, nor are the cameras which use it. Neither was 126, 127, 620, or even disc. Kodak introduced them, and one can certainly argue that they did it to try to increase their sales (like any company doesn't do that).
But Kodak was the film format innovator. 35mm cine film was around before Kodak decided to sell it - but their cartridge design called 135 soon eclipsed all others, and that's the standard today. 120 film, 220 film, these are also Kodak innovations that survived. Plenty of others didn't, but Kodak was hardly the only one to make them.
The fact is, without Kodak, there would not have been an amateur film industry as we know it today.
Kodak's philosophy has ALWAYS been cheap and affordable photography for the masses -- and their film cameras have pretty much always reflected that (cheap junk). The ONLY two exceptions to that I can think of are the Retina I, II, and III series (which they actually had very little to do with) and the Medallist (produced to higher standards than usual, in order to get a government contract).
The Ektra was pretty nice. And quite honestly, even their cheap junk cameras do an amazingly good job, even today. My Brownie Hawkeye, which I bought for that 'cheap toy camera' effect, rendered such good images, I can't use it for that.
Taken with a Brownie:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1124/539792040_35c38decf2.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/539792040/)
Taken with a Yashica 12 (same lens as 124G):
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1296/539762647_ce08122072.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/539762647/)
The Yashica clearly does a better job - but not THAT much better, considering that one is a high-quality Tessar lens with the ability to focus, while the other is a miniscus lens with fixed focus.
Kodak made cameras for the rest of us - which was and is a large market. Not for you and I, perhaps - but for our parents and others who like to "press the button and we'll do the rest." And that's wrong how?
I wish Kodak well. I suspect this latest move as a boneheaded management play, but you never know.
Students use dslr's now. If you (as a student) want to take a chemical B+W class too, you'll have to buy a film camera too. You cannot at my community college take film photo classes anymore without a basic photography class which is taught exclusively with digital.
While I'm not sure about Kodak's move with film SLR, I can tell couple-of-years old experience in India - Taj Mahal, specifically. When we approached complex, photographer offered his services, take pics of us before we go into palace territory and maybe go with us and take pics there. Prints would be made in hour or so. I don't remember which SLR exactly he carried but for granted it were film SLR, not digital. Adding here predigital amateurs, there's space for film use in India.
But at what price ? I'm not sure Indians will buy new film SLR for, let's guess, $200. And I wouldn't, too, because I love bargains on used stuff. Old, used, sturdy and beautiful film stuff.
New film camera could pay back (for any manufacturer) if it would be cult camera. Will this SLR be cult camera ? I don't give my hand for it, not even finger.
Exactly. Which is why in countries where electricity, broadband internet access and so on are more problematic, digital doesn't offer any particular advantages over film. Whichever format you use, you have to physically send it away somewhere to get your pictures in hard copy form.
Sure, but what is better, exposed and undeveloped film or a computer screen to view digital files for three hours a day?
Leighgion
03-06-2008, 12:45
While I agree this announcement has several layers of strangeness, I don't think citing the used market as a natural competitor for a new economy film camera is quite right.
Most of us folks who end up hanging out on special interest message boards are deep into the hobby enough that we don't think twice about wading into eBay or the like to find that model from 20 or 30 years ago and do what it takes to get it. It's an unfounded presumption that everybody is like us in this regard, ready to be or even able in a practical sense. For large masses of the population, if you can't buy something locally from new stock on the shelf, it might as well not exist.
Take my hairdresser for example. In order to have some sample pictures of her work to show prospective brides, she's been using disposable cameras. She doesn't own a computer. She doesn't even own a DVD player. I started to recommend a Nikon FE and 85mm lens as a nice, grounded kit that wouldn't cost too much but realized I might as well be asking her to join the voyage of Jason and Argonauts. Just shopping for a used kit is beyond my hairdresser's normal range, to say nothing of getting one in good order and having it CLA'd.
Junk that it might end up being, people like my hairdresser are exactly the sort who'd buy a new cheap Kodak film SLR and I live in Washington. In India, I'm sure this kind of situation is a lot more common and there's a lot of people in India.
bmattock
03-06-2008, 12:58
Take my hairdresser for example.
You have a hairdresser?
ibcrewin
03-06-2008, 13:18
You have a hairdresser?
Bah... I was thinking the same thing!
George S.
03-06-2008, 13:30
Here in the USA I understand colleges aren't even using film in their intro classes and are throwing away the darkroom equipment. I've seen a lot of this stuff on several auction sites.
In case you never noticed it, there is 6,6 billion inhabitants in this planet, and 2,6 billion are out of electricity... Try to market them a digi cam, or any camera at all...
Leighgion
03-06-2008, 13:43
You have a hairdresser?
Well, she's a hairdresser and she cuts my hair. Logically, that makes her my hairdresser, not my dentist. :)
bmattock
03-06-2008, 13:49
she cuts my hair.
You have hair?
Man, I'm missing all the fun.
Leighgion
03-06-2008, 14:04
You have hair?
Man, I'm missing all the fun.
You want some? My hairdresser just ends up throwing all the stuff away she takes off her clients.
My daughter just asked me for a manual film camera for her and two more for her friends for her high-school photography class. The University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee teaches film photography and traditional b&w printing still. I gave a student there a Canonet last year.
dazedgonebye
03-06-2008, 14:24
Just helped a co-worker get a film camera for her daughter's film based photography course at college here in AZ.
Not a dead thing yet.
Funny thing about the Community College I am attending- they opened a brand new and very expensive building last year. In it is a brand new, purpose made dark room.
At least for the next two quarters, the only class offered that would make use of it at all is an advanced class in which the students are allowed to use the materials of their choice. No classes are offered to introduce a new student to the darkroom that I see looking through the schedule.
In fact, the only direct reference to chemical photography is Polaroid transfers in a 3rd quarter basic class...
Last spring, I asked someone in the photo dept. whether there would be chemical B+W classes offered in the fall. I was told that there was a tentative schedule for one, but that it would be cancelled if not enough students paid to get in. So I'm guessing they didn't.
I teach photography at a small liberal arts college and Photography I, the introductory course, is all film and darkroom based. I plan to keep it that way even in our new building, currently in the design phase. However, I find the Vivitar SLR currently avaiable to be pathetic, and the Nikon FM10 is not much better. I understand they are both Cosina products, and they are certainly both affordable and capable of taking great photographs. However, the failure rate is unacceptable. I'd say one of every 5 or 6 cameras does not even make it thru the semester before needing some sort of warranty repair... and the battery holder on the Vivitar is PLASTIC and falls apart if you tighten it just a simdgeon too tight. Students have wrecked this cheap plastic part, thus making the meter in their cameras useless. Why Kodak chose this camera to brand as their own, if that is what they have done, is beyond me.
FallisPhoto
03-06-2008, 17:40
Leaving out the run-on sentence, just to address the 'proprietary' comment. 110 film is not proprietary, nor are the cameras which use it. Neither was 126, 127, 620, or even disc.
Okay, 120 and 110. As for 126, pretty much the only people making cameras for it were Kodak and the people they sold licenses to. Same with 620, 616, disc and APS cameras and so on and on. Seems like they do the same thing over and over again, and it never works. Kodak has some of the best research and design people there are, but they have some of the most flat-out stupid marketing people on earth. What do you want to bet that their new film SLR is going to be in some oddball format like 129mm? Wouldn't surprise me.
Kodak introduced them, and one can certainly argue that they did it to try to increase their sales (like any company doesn't do that).
Other than Polaroid, name one.
Yes, I know they made some pretty good stuff (commercial Ektar lenses, for instance, are still among the best you can get), but their other cheaply made shoddy stuff kind of overwhelms it. You have to be careful getting the Ektars too, since they seem to have labled pretty much anything better than mediocre an Ektar at one time or another. They make wonderful film, still, even though there is now only one place on earth that will still develop what I consider their best. I do like Kodak Portra for indoor portraits. Kodachrome is good for both indoor and outdoor portraits. I think Fuji is generally better suited for the outdoor stuff though, because their films seem to lean slightly more toward green, while Kodak seems to lean slightly more toward blue. Sometimes I use T-Max 400 too, if I want grain. If I don't, I go with Efke. Unlike their films, I do not like Kodak's cameras though, and I never have (with the very few exceptions previously noted).
I think their reputation for leaving their customers high and dry kind of overwhelms the good stuff they did, and that reputation is only exceeded by Polaroid. Kodak was denying, publicly, the rumors that they would be dropping their line of film cameras for a year -- until about a week before they did it. One of their company reps lied to my face about that. My parents bought several cameras from them over the years that Kodak no longer makes film for, and so on.
As for the Ektra, yeah, it was pretty good -- if it felt like working that day. Hardly any still do, unless they have been extensively rebuilt. Even when new, they were notoriously unreliable (mostly because of shutters that would jam at the drop of a hat). It was a serious attempt to compete with Leica and Contax, but it was a dismal failure.
I know that we all owe Kodak a big debt, for making photography affordable and practical. Eastman and Kodak are both long dead though and the people who followed them are folks of a different stripe.
gudlagoba
03-06-2008, 18:44
Just because we can get cheap electronics in North America let's not assume it's the same in places like India.
I visit my family in India once a year and as a previous poster pointed out, electricity is erratic even in the capital city and broadband connections, even when present, are not very reliable. My parents have the computer hooked up to a UPS and voltage stabilizer at all times. There is ADSL at home but sometimes the phone line is so noisy that one has a hard time with voice calls let alone data. Internet connections cannot be taken for granted as we do over here.
India's nominal per capita income is $1089 and at purchasing power parity, $4552 according to wikipedia . If you're on a salary of $100 a month, computer (even a $400 one), digital camera and printer are not high on the priority list. I am not talking about the yuppies and the new rich who are but a very small minority in India.Point and shoot film cameras (not throw away cameras!) are still the most viable way for most of these folks to document their families and events. Film such as Kodak Gold 100 can be obtained from almost any corner store for Rupees 75 (that's what I paid a couple of years ago in Delhi). Film labs are plentiful in most cities and processing cost is reasonable.
I think Kodak has had great success with film in India and film is going to be alive and well in India for many years to come.
NickTrop
03-06-2008, 20:12
To those who said "digital cheaper than film" etc... and disputed costs, etc. I dunno... I just picked a digicam at random, a popular one, and Googled it...
Nikon D40 Digital SLR Two-Lens Bonus Outfit (18-55/VR 70-300)
Includes FREE Gadget Bag and DVDs $100 Value!
Mfr # SLR1176 Our Stock # SLR1176
Our Price: $1,099.98
Sure, you can buy it cheaper, I'm sure. My take is the average consumer DSLR runs around - say $800 with a kit lens new. But c'mon now, we all know you're not gonna stop there. You might find a Samsung or a used for less, sure. And you can use "Linux + open source" but that's not the typical user.
The typical user is gonna by a D40 or a D70... etc. Which, typically costs around $1000 when all is said and done. Depends, lots of varience, lots of caviates.
Remember, we're talkin China here, and the argument I intitally made was...
You need $1000-ish for a digital camera, "typically". Maybe a little less, but for a new DSLR - a Nikon D40, or whatever, and this is an entry model, it's about a grand.
Since in rural China and India, I doubt there's a "Walmart" where they can get digital prints made, so in addition, they'll need computers, inks, printers etc. Unless they're viewing for the web. That you might already have these things, living in a wealthy Western country, is not material to the argument.
With digital you have to spring for a lot up front...
With film, you "pay as you go"...
This is probably more suitable for people in an emerging economy.
"Perhaps" digital is less expensive in the long run. It depends how much you shoot, and how much you print. For me, mostly a black and white shooter who buys film in 100' spools and rolls and develops his own, the cost differential isn't that big a deal - even over the long run.
But, I do it because I like the look better of film. Don't really like SLRs in general and DSLRs in particular. Don't like to blind people with a series of preflashes before the "big one", don't care for all the unnecessary automation, don't like the futzy buttons and superflous "modes", don't like "zoom" lenses and don't like the "zoom" effect/crop factor - whatever, of using lenses designed for full frame on a smaller digital sensor...
... and just find shooting film a zillion times more fun, and prefer the results. I prefer the look to digital, enjoy developing my own film, and think the results look better. Digital doesn't "suck" but it just doesn't have the same aesthetic as film.
bmattock
03-06-2008, 20:39
To those who said "digital cheaper than film" etc...
Me being one of them.
But, I do it because I like the look better of film.
And that's what it comes down to - do what you want. I like film too. And digital. I refuse to play games about 'better', 'best', 'superior' or whatever - do what you enjoy doing, I'm all for it.
But if you need to convince yourself that you're doing it because film is cheaper - you can tell that story walking. It wasn't true two years ago, and it sure as hell ain't true now. Every mathematical attempt to 'prove' it comes down to playing funny with the numbers so it comes out in the luddite's favor. Believe what you want, Alice, but I ain't going down that rabbit-hole.
bmattock
03-06-2008, 20:44
Other than Polaroid, name one.
Sony.
Betamax ring any bells? Elcassette?
HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray sound familiar at all?
Everybody loves to create their own 'standards' and then try to make the market do it their way. Agfa tried with their cassettes, but Kodak's version whomped 'em. And then there is Minox. Oh yes, it goes on and on. Kodak was just the most prolific in the film 'standards' game. But all the enduring cartridge formats - Kodak. Every single one.
By the way - I agree with you about Kodak's technical prowess and marketing idiocy. Big time.
photogdave
03-06-2008, 20:46
But if you need to convince yourself that you're doing it because film is cheaper - you can tell that story walking. It wasn't true two years ago, and it sure as hell ain't true now. Every mathematical attempt to 'prove' it comes down to playing funny with the numbers so it comes out in the luddite's favor. Believe what you want, Alice, but I ain't going down that rabbit-hole.
I use the exact same argument to explain to most people why I think it's cheaper to shoot film than digital. Most of my cameras were bought and paid for years ago so it's just the cost of film and processing.
However I totally agree with you Bill. It's a useless point to argue about. Let's just all do what we like and do it the best we can.
infrequent
03-06-2008, 20:51
not sure about china but i do have a bit of perspective on india.
afaik pros are still all film. recently at my cousin sister's marriage, the photog was using a n90 / f5 kit. most of the folks who can't afford cameras would visit a studio where i suppose film would again be dominant. i am guessing most pros are still using film but in the metros this might not be the case.
most teens, young adults etc are switching rapidly to digicams or prefer phone cams. the focus is not on getting digital prints but to exchange / post them online. mind you that most youngsters have access to computers (home, uni) and the net (cyber cafes). lately most are sticking to phone cams. now these are not "high end" sony ericsson models but most don't seem to care at all. they are quite pleased with the noisy / low grade results. i would say this would be the fastest growing demographic.
as for hobbyists, i really doubt much of that actually is worth accounting for. sure folks are interested in photos but not many entertain it to the extent we do here.
i am not sure how much of this is in tune with the market research but the above is just an informal survey of about 200-300 of my relations back in india.
i will be visiting india again in may (another cousin sister getting married) and will prolly shoot with my hexar rf. i am pretty sure i will be the only one apart from the wedding photog.
Me being one of them.
And that's what it comes down to - do what you want. I like film too. And digital. I refuse to play games about 'better', 'best', 'superior' or whatever - do what you enjoy doing, I'm all for it.
But if you need to convince yourself that you're doing it because film is cheaper - you can tell that story walking. It wasn't true two years ago, and it sure as hell ain't true now. Every mathematical attempt to 'prove' it comes down to playing funny with the numbers so it comes out in the luddite's favor. Believe what you want, Alice, but I ain't going down that rabbit-hole.
Grow up. There is nothing about using film that makes one a luddite. And I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that this forum for film camera users is taking place via internet connections on a remote server, by people using modern computing hardware all over the world. All us "luddites" are trapped in the past, unlike you, yet somehow are able to communicate with your hyper-advanced self.
I'd agree it's not strictly about cost, but you'd have to be seriously delusional to think shooting digital is somehow always cheaper than shooting film. Keep telling yourself whatever you want to hear, but understand that people might actually know what they are talking about when it comes to THEIR costs and usage.
Digital might be cheaper for you, but tell that story walking :/
keithwms
03-06-2008, 21:04
Here in the USA I understand colleges aren't even using film in their intro classes and are throwing away the darkroom equipment. I've seen a lot of this stuff on several auction sites.
At least in my class, we are using film cameras (medium and small format), and doing wet darkroom printing etc. The students love it. Many of them already have digitals but want to do traditional b&w.
My class was oversubscribed in 3 minutes of the opening of registration, and I quickly had triple numbers waitlisted; I even had people from other colleges trying to get in. Alas, I can only fit 8 people in the darkroom at once!
This was all a shock to me, I honestly wasn't expecting anybody to sign up for my class (which is even outside of my department) because all I hear on the 'net is gloom and doom and how convenient and inexpensive digital has become. But the students seem to really love the idea of doing something different. Just ask them and you will hear the same thing almost every time. At least at my school!
^ That's consistent with my experience.
I've never heard of a secondary school closing a film lab to go digital except in undocumented anecdotal internet stories. Every college photography class I've ever tried to sign up for requires film and is full within minutes of opening of registration. Maybe there is some school out there that has phased out film, but it's hardly representative. Quite the opposite.
At least in my class, we are using film cameras (medium and small format), and doing wet darkroom printing etc. The students love it. Many of them already have digitals but want to do traditional b&w.
My class was oversubscribed in 3 minutes of the opening of registration, and I quickly had triple numbers waitlisted; I even had people from other colleges trying to get in. Alas, I can only fit 8 people in the darkroom at once!
This was all a shock to me, I honestly wasn't expecting anybody to sign up for my class (which is even outside of my department) because all I hear on the 'net is gloom and doom and how convenient and inexpensive digital has become. But the students seem to really love the idea of doing something different. Just ask them and you will hear the same thing almost every time. At least at my school!
yeah, this has been the case for my classes as well. Students are dying to learn to use the darkroom. I have long waiting lists, 50+ requests per semester for a class that can only take 14 because of the size of the darkroom.
^ That's consistent with my experience.
I've never heard of a secondary school closing a film lab to go digital except in undocumented anecdotal internet stories. Every college photography class I've ever tried to sign up for requires film and is full within minutes of opening of registration. Maybe there is some school out there that has phased out film, but it's hardly representative. Quite the opposite.
There are MANY universities and colleges that have phased out film. Some very top schools.
bmattock
03-06-2008, 21:25
Grow up.
I'm 47, there, 40 ounce. How grown up you want me to be?
There is nothing about using film that makes one a luddite.
No, because then I'd be a luddite, and I'm not.
Being afraid of digital and cursing it and trying to prove to oneself that film is superior, cheaper, or causes less tooth decay - that's being a luddite. If you love film, use it. I do. If you love digital, use it. I do that too. But let's not pretend that film is cheaper than digital. Been there, done that, got the bukkit. Wasn't true then, isn't true now. My VCR (oops, PVR) doesn't flash 12:00. I'm not afraid of technology. People who are, are luddites.
And I like how you conveniently ignore the fact that this forum for film camera users
Nope, it's a forum for rangefinder camera users. You get lost leaving APUG?
is taking place via internet connections on a remote server, by people using modern computing hardware all over the world. All us "luddites" are trapped in the past, unlike you, yet somehow are able to communicate with your hyper-advanced self.
It does amaze me sometimes, but I put it down to Bill Gates and Apple managing to drag at least of a couple coffin-stuffers online by making computers brain-dead easy to use.
I'd agree it's not strictly about cost, but you'd have to be seriously delusional to think shooting digital is somehow always cheaper than shooting film.
Didn't say that. If I buy a one-time use film camera and a cheap digicam, the film camera costs less. But that's not any kind of a real-world example, is it? Nor am I going to replay the math. You won't like mine and I won't like yours, but yours is wrong. Been. There. Film lost. Get over it.
Keep telling yourself whatever you want to hear, but understand that people might actually know what they are talking about when it comes to THEIR costs and usage.
The ones who are skeered of technology will be better off with old bessy, no doubt. But it ain't cheaper.
Digital might be cheaper for you, but tell that story walking :/
I did. Bye.
George S.
03-07-2008, 05:52
Digital is cheaper in the long run because once you buy the camera, lens printer and memory card, there's not much left to buy. Film and developing is going to get more expensive as the manufacturers and sources to develop shrink.
And the new "consumer" DSLRs with lens are now around $500- $600, not a grand. Seen a few in today's paper. New film cameras are crap. (Not talking about the used market)
photogdave
03-07-2008, 08:13
Digital is cheaper in the long run because once you buy the camera, lens printer and memory card, there's not much left to buy. Film and developing is going to get more expensive as the manufacturers and sources to develop shrink.
And the new "consumer" DSLRs with lens are now around $500- $600, not a grand. Seen a few in today's paper. New film cameras are crap. (Not talking about the used market)
The only new film cameras you can buy are Bessas, Ikons, Leicas, Canon Eos 1Vs and Nikon F6s. They are not crap.
You can get a Bessa and a lens for the same price as a cheap DSLR and guess which one is the better built, longer lasting camera?
How long is a printer going to last before the heads get so clogged that it's easier to throw it out and replace it than to fix it? Three to four years? How much are you going to spend on ink in that time?
How are you going to back up your images? Cheap DVDs that can corrupt within a couple of years, or more expensive archival gold DVDs that cost about $3 each? Maybe you spend about $200-300 on a decent 500GB hard drive that may or not fail in a couple of years?
Nothing personal here. Pick the method that suits you best but consider all the factors.
antiquark
03-07-2008, 08:58
And the new "consumer" DSLRs with lens are now around $500- $600,
A lot of film can be bought and developed for $500. That would keep many people (like my mom, for example) shooting for a good ten years!
How long is a printer going to last before the heads get so clogged that it's easier to throw it out and replace it than to fix it? Three to four years? How much are you going to spend on ink in that time?
Hm, a Meopta Axomat 5a enlarger is available for 235 Euro, a lamp for this is around 23 Euro, Paper isn't free, too as are negative sleeves.
So I call that even :-)
How are you going to back up your images? Cheap DVDs that can corrupt within a couple of years, or more expensive archival gold DVDs that cost about $3 each? Maybe you spend about $200-300 on a decent 500GB hard drive that may or not fail in a couple of years?
Nothing personal here. Pick the method that suits you best but consider all the factors.
CAN corrupt, not DO corrupt. And duplicating DVDs is a breeze compared to duplicating negatives.
But my day job is document management and when I can store someones electricity or water bill for some 30 years, I can do that with my files as well.
Admittedly, I have an unfair advantage, I have access to reliable media and know the procedures to keep digital files, where I'll probably fail miserable with an archival print :)
Oh, I use DVDs with AZO dyes and scratch proof coating instead of gold plated ones, my oldest is some 7 years old and still readable.
photogdave
03-07-2008, 09:19
Hm, a Meopta Axomat 5a enlarger is available for 235 Euro, a lamp for this is around 23 Euro, Paper isn't free, too as are negative sleeves.
So I call that even :-)
CAN corrupt, not DO corrupt. And duplicating DVDs is a breeze compared to duplicating negatives.
But my day job is document management and when I can store someones electricity or water bill for some 30 years, I can do that with my files as well.
Admittedly, I have an unfair advantage, I have access to reliable media and know the procedures to keep digital files, where I'll probably fail miserable with an archival print :)
Oh, I use DVDs with AZO dyes and scratch proof coating instead of gold plated ones, my oldest is some 7 years old and still readable.
I take your points. Basically I was trying to point out, as you have, that it's not all cut-and-dried. There are so many variables that it's useless to argue that one method is more economic than the other. We should all just carry on doing it the way we like doing it!
A lot of film can be bought and developed for $500. That would keep many people (like my mom, for example) shooting for a good ten years!
My mom even longer :-)
But how much film do YOU use? And Paper, and chemicals, and sleeves, and and and ...
Hm, I got a, used, 5D less than two weeks ago, from the file numbers I took some 500 pictures since then.
I take your points. Basically I was trying to point out, as you have, that it's not all cut-and-dried. There are so many variables that it's useless to argue that one method is more economic than the other. We should all just carry on doing it the way we like doing it!
Exaktly! And I won't give up B/W film only because there are digital cameras, I like film! And I like my Contax G2 and shoot slides because I'll never get a digital Contax G2.
That's why I think it's a good idea to have film cameras for education, they still teach children to write with a pen and to paint with watercolor. Why not photography with film?
jan normandale
03-07-2008, 09:30
bmattock ...."Sony Betamax ring any bells? Elcassette?
HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray sound familiar at all?"
there you go.. bringing up expensive and bad memories... nice ;D
antiquark
03-07-2008, 09:41
But how much film do YOU use? And Paper, and chemicals, and sleeves, and and and ...
Don't ask, for me, film and digital photography is a big money pit.
Hm, I got a, used, 5D less than two weeks ago, from the file numbers I took some 500 pictures since then.
Yeah, the digital style of shooting is definitely different than traditional film. These days it's normal to take 100 pictures of a kids birthday part. In the film days you'd take a couple of pics of the kids by the birthday cake, and 5 pics of the kids playing.
So far I've taken about 13,000 digital pics since getting my first digital camera 2 years ago. Can you imagine the cost if that was on film?
That seems to be the fallacy when people say that digital is cheaper than film -- they assume you'd still be taking 13,000 pictures if you were using a film camera.
Ronald_H
03-07-2008, 09:47
Only a few months ago a friend took up a photography course at her University and bought a good Nikon FM on eBay. She lives in Belgium. For you Ameerikans, that actually is in the Western world. She also owns a laptop and a cr*ppy digital P&S. She thinks traditional B&W is more fun.
Not quite dead yet...
George S.
03-07-2008, 09:56
The only new film cameras you can buy are Bessas, Ikons, Leicas, Canon Eos 1Vs and Nikon F6s. They are not crap.
I was speaking about the "Vivitars" that Kodak is going to flog to the poor masses. They are crap.
George S.
03-07-2008, 10:02
A lot of film can be bought and developed for $500. That would keep many people (like my mom, for example) shooting for a good ten years!
But what are you assuming, that the camera, lens and flash is going to be free? Those items have to come from the $500 figure too, you know.
Now you're down to maybe $200. So what does that leave you, 20 or so rolls to buy and develop and print? At 2 or 3 real "keepers" per roll, that's a lot of waste. At least with digital you only need to print the ones you want to.
There's pros and cons to both systems, I'm not bashing film, I'm actually shooting a lot of film lately. But for convenience, my Olympus 410 isn't easily beat either.
I dunno. Both film and digital seem to cost me plenty :-)
Gene
It seems lots of people here are forgetting that 90% of the people walking around with digital point and shoots, or low end DSLR's don't even look at their pictures on a computer, or do any editing what so ever. Infact, you can bet your bottom dollar that alot of those people don't even know how to edit their photos, or even get them onto a computer. And the ones that do know how to get them onto their computer just look at them on their computer, email them around, and never get them printed. They do all their "editing" in camera, and then walk into the mini mart, plug their memory card into the machine, and order 18cent prints.
To include a computer editing software, and a printer in your start up digital prices is just ignoring the mass market.
A quick search on best buy shows me in the USA you can get a 9mp fuji point and shoot for 170 dollars. Most people will never need more than 5 or 6mp. Film still cheaper?
Bill, thanks for the link in the first post. It's one of the more bizarre side stories I've seen recently. If they go ahead with this Vivitar deal, I wonder where they will be selling them. I suspect the NA and European markets are already saturated with good used SLRs.
Gene
Leighgion
03-07-2008, 10:55
There are so many variables that it's useless to argue that one method is more economic than the other. We should all just carry on doing it the way we like doing it!
Yet you, along with all of us, continue to argue which method is more economic than the other. Useless, perhaps, but we keep on doing it even while decrying it as useless. :)
keithwms
03-07-2008, 10:59
Whether we use film or digital, how much of the world market do our opinions represent? Very little, I think.
I mean, because it's cost effective for an American to buy a dSLR and a nice printer does not mean that the same will be possible in developing countries... maybe not for another decade or so. Some people need to actually get on a plane and go do some touring before presenting grand theories about the demise of film.
[As usual, this discussion reminds me of the cigarette situation in the US: a lot of people think that because smoking is on the decline here and we all know it isn't good for you, that must mean that it's in decline worldwide. Wrong... dead wrong.]
I am just saying that there is still plenty of market for film products throughout Asia.
Someone above said that Kodak isn't stupid. Well I am not going to comment directly on that ;) I hope that's right, but in any case, I do think that Fuji has known about the potential for growth in the Asian markets for some time. Too quickly people forget that Fuji is still pushing film and film cameras in Asia. And Ilford has recently found a new place in the Asian marketplace too.
Look at the megaperls webshop, they give us a glimpse of some things that aren't available in the US but which are sold in Japan. Notice that they have some items not on the US or European market, including instant cameras and you name it.
FallisPhoto
03-07-2008, 11:12
Me being one of them.
And that's what it comes down to - do what you want. I like film too. And digital. I refuse to play games about 'better', 'best', 'superior' or whatever - do what you enjoy doing, I'm all for it.
But if you need to convince yourself that you're doing it because film is cheaper - you can tell that story walking. It wasn't true two years ago, and it sure as hell ain't true now. Every mathematical attempt to 'prove' it comes down to playing funny with the numbers so it comes out in the luddite's favor. Believe what you want, Alice, but I ain't going down that rabbit-hole.
Having played with the numbers myself, I think it works out in the end that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Over a decade, it comes out about the same. In the SHORT term, digital cameras can be much more expensive; over a medium term, film is much more expensive; if you look at it over a longer term yet, with depreciation and replacements, they about balance out. It is probably still a little less expensive to go with a digital camera even over the very long term, but not as much as you might think. I think the difference really is negligable. Of course some other major factors would be how much you use your cameras and whether you are using a professional model or a p&s.
In addition, the two types of cameras are not really that interchangable, in spite of all the hype to the contrary. Getting into which is best would be like saying lasers are better than bicycles -- whether that's true or not depends one hell of a lot on what you want to do with it.
FallisPhoto
03-07-2008, 11:28
Sony.
Betamax ring any bells? Elcassette?
HD-DVD versus Blu-Ray sound familiar at all?
Yep, but those are not films. BTW, I think both Betamax and the Elcassette were much better than what we wound up stuck with.
Everybody loves to create their own 'standards' and then try to make the market do it their way. Agfa tried with their cassettes, but Kodak's version whomped 'em. And then there is Minox. Oh yes, it goes on and on. Kodak was just the most prolific in the film 'standards' game. But all the enduring cartridge formats - Kodak. Every single one.
Minox film and cameras are still being sold (they didn't leave their customers stranded in midstream), and the Agfa cartridges were 35mm. In fact, Kodak's 126 film cartridges used pretty much the same principal as the Agfa cartridges.
By the way - I agree with you about Kodak's technical prowess and marketing idiocy. Big time.
ChrisPlatt
03-07-2008, 15:07
If Fuji and Kodak intend to keep selling film, it makes sense that they should also market film cameras.
Chris
It seems lots of people here are forgetting that 90% of the people walking around with digital point and shoots, or low end DSLR's don't even look at their pictures on a computer, or do any editing what so ever. Infact, you can bet your bottom dollar that alot of those people don't even know how to edit their photos, or even get them onto a computer.
I can attest to that comment about downloading illiteracy. I have had way more than one person in my digital photo classes who had never downloaded from their digital camera. In fact, I had one lady who had been to Europe twice, and had filled four memory cards, and had yet to take a picture off the memory cards. She signed up for the class expressly to learn how to download the pictures to her computer. However, even then, she thought she should put the "used" cards away with the pictures on them, and continue to buy new cards for continued image taking.
One thing about conferring with like minded people on these forums. It insulates one from the real world and how people view our chosen hobby/pastime/avocation.
I sell quite a few film cameras on eBay and a good percentage of them are going to Pacific Rim nations and Europe. The asian market is good for post world war II cameras that were unable to be sold as home market cameras. They are making a decent effort to bring them home.
I'm beginning to think that film and digital aren't even the same "sport" anymore. Many of my digital P&S friends (but not all) only look at their pictures on the little LCD-and just leave the camera home when it fills up. Honest to God!
I'm popular because I make prints. Everybody likes them! Many don't even know how to make them!
I'm beginning to think that film and digital aren't even the same "sport" anymore. Many of my digital P&S friends (but not all) only look at their pictures on the little LCD-and just leave the camera home when it fills up. Honest to God!
I'm popular because I make prints. Everybody likes them! Many don't even know how to make them!
Yes, I know this :-)
I'm the guy on the right and what's behind me are prints I made from pictures I took in that pub :-)
http://www.hett.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=7672&g2_serialNumber=2
Since backups were mentioned, I just wanted to toss out that there are plenty of online backup services (Mozy is one with an excellent rep) that will safeguard your stuff for five bucks a month or so. I use Jungledisk with Amazon S3 and it's a few bucks a month to upload and store the stuff I care about (which is backed up to external HD here as well). Me being relatively new to shooting digital again I had no clue these things even existed... hopefully it might help somebody!
Another thread shot to hell by the introduction of the FID arguments. :rolleyes:
Anyway, everyone seems to have overlooked a few things:
1. "The planned KV100 is, at the moment, at the development stages and once released will be aimed at educational institutes who specialise in traditional photography.' "
So everyone who is frothing at what a stupid marketing company Kodak is, let that sink in a bit ... it's costing them relatively little and the risk is low. On the upside there's some brand-awareness benefit.
2. The announcement was made by a Vivitar official; there's nothing in the press section on the Kodak US site, and a search on "Vivitar" at both the US and UK turned up nothing about this. So this isn't exactly a key, strategic initiative for Kodak. But it does seem to bring out the RFF marketing guru squad!
3. The one Kodak quote in the article is from the GM of the Film Capture division, though I don't know if that's the corporate dude here in Rochester or a counterpart in the UK. Whatever, he's in Mary Jane Hellyer's world, and she's no dummy. So :p to the usual Kodak bashers!
bmattock
03-10-2008, 10:57
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/kodak_we_have_not_signed_vivitar_camera_deal_news_ 196899.html?aff=rss
Kodak refutes Vivitar camera licensing comments
Kodak: We have not signed Vivitar camera deal
The fun never ends...
Yes, I know this :-)
I'm the guy on the right and what's behind me are prints I made from pictures I took in that pub :-)
http://www.hett.org/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=7672&g2_serialNumber=2
Wow; you guys can have a smoke at a pub? We can't even have one on an outdoor patio, if it has a roof (even with no walls).
she thought she should put the "used" cards away with the pictures on them, and continue to buy new cards for continued image taking.
Smart lady.:cool: Buying new memory cards is cheaper and safer than downloading the card contents to a computer and then storing on a CD IMHO. :)
AJShepherd
09-09-2008, 04:05
Seen here (http://www.photographyblog.com/index.php/weblog/comments/kodak_professional_ektar_100_film/) here that Kodak are bringing out a new colour film in November.
"Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE:EK) continues to champion professional photographers and set new standards in professional film with the new KODAK PROFESSIONAL EKTAR 100 (EKTAR 100) film. This new film, with ISO 100 speed, high saturation and ultra-vivid colour, offers the finest, smoothest grain of any colour negative film available today."
infrequent
09-09-2008, 04:12
reala killer?!
Double Negative
09-09-2008, 06:19
Oooh, neat...
FWIW, here's the link to Kodak's description of the new Ektar 100. There's a link there that will get you a datasheet in PDF:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/ektarIndex.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.5.14&lc=en
Also: This says that Ektar 100 (available in October, in 135/36 only) is to replace 100 UC, and further that 400UC is to be killed by the end of 2008. So, if you like 100UC or 400UC, now's the time to buy!
Oh, I have been so waiting for Ms. Hellyer to deliver that 4th new emulsion of the year! A killer ISO 100 film from right here in town is so in my bag!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.