if kodak dies - Page 2

Kolame · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by claacct

[…]

The death of Kodak and demise of film is in fact good for photography and its future.

This is NOT about film vs. digital, it is about the eventual loss of material many, many photographers are still working with, especially pro-photographers, who know which products they wanna use and there are reasons they don't stick to newest technology, because newest film has its advantages, as well as Tri-X has a special appeal to many people. And the death of company won't help anyone.

Phil_F_NM · 10-02-2011

As Tom said much of the 50's and 60's were captured on Tri-X. But the bulk of the imagery captured during the 20th century was on Kodak film. It has to be some overwhelming percentage since they were and to some extent, still are ubiquitous. The world without Kodak is a completely different history. Yes some other company would have made a similar process but they may not have been so constant and present in our lives and throughout the last 110 years. Revisionist historical musings, of course.

As for Tri-X in 35mm, I'm planning on replacing that with a few thousand feet of frozen XX and modifying my development. Now, film for the Rolleiflex or the 4x5 cameras, that's going to be a different matter all together.

And the death of Kodak will absolutely NOT be good for photography. Why? Artists should not be limited to using only 1 type or size of brush for painting; only 1 specific weight pencil for drawing; or only one medium in any craft. The lack of tools for creative expression can be a step towards homogeneity.

Phil Forrest

batterytypehah! · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by tunalegs

I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks.

Sure, the trademarks won't disappear. Doesn't mean a thing. Polaroid and Agfa are still around as trademarks.

Roger Hicks · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by claacct

As long as photography is not dead, people should be grateful, because this schizophrenia of film and digital not to mention the dead weight of the times long passed is not helping much.

But sadly the powers that be in photography are the same old mustache Petes and their inability to face the change. While Lytro is promising interactive photographs, we still have people talking about how to expose for shadows and highlights...

The death of Kodak and demise of film is in fact good for photography and its future.

Sorry, this is complete and utter twaddle. In what way is the disappearance of ANY medium good for ANY art? Does everyone want 'interactive' photographs, whatever they may be? And are you utterly unfamiliar with 'creative tension', or of choosing a medium and working with it? YOU don't like it, and you therefore presume to tell EVERYONE what to do.

Cheers,

R.

Chriscrawfordphoto · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Dear Chris,

'Irony' does not mean 'ferrous'.

Cheers,

R.

According to this T-shirt, it does!

tunalegs · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by claacct

As long as photography is not dead, people should be grateful, because this schizophrenia of film and digital not to mention the dead weight of the times long passed is not helping much.

But sadly the powers that be in photography are the same old mustache Petes and their inability to face the change. While Lytro is promising interactive photographs, we still have people talking about how to expose for shadows and highlights...

The death of Kodak and demise of film is in fact good for photography and its future.

You're right. I don't even know why I keep these pens and papers around when I own a computer. How completely daft of me.

Nigel Meaby · 10-02-2011

Every post I've seen from Claacct has been trollish or with a negative tone. Never seems to have a constructive or positive point to make. Either an agenda or a chip on his shoulder, perhaps? The last post I read of his on a X100 and David Alan Harvey thread was deleted by a mod almost immediately due to it's content so maybe if we ignore the troll he will go away

Zonan · 10-02-2011

Ignorance being bliss, I'd guess Kodak has at least 50% of the worldwide film market. If they were to disappear, how likely is it that Fuji, Ilford, whomever could (or even would want to) pick up the slack? And Fuji as the sole purveyor of color film. when they discontinue regularly without any notice? Scarcity causes rising prices, and users giving up because they either can't get film, or can't/won't pay the prices. I think this is the real danger.

_mark__ · 10-02-2011

Google will rescue kodak and kill the analogue side of it to draw us further into their virtual world! Afterall they can't yet control our darkrooms! (and other such tin-foil-hat speculations).

Phil_F_NM · 10-02-2011

Yeah, it's too bad that people can't seem to figure out how to get a digital XPan Hassy going.

That sort of "let film die" way of thought is for folks whom photography consists of very normal 2:3 or 3:4 boxes, with images from moderate wides to telephotos which suit the viewer just fine. Show me a way to capture a 120 degree field of view on a 6x12 digital camera with no color artifacts or any of the other things that happen with super wides like that, and I'll think about not shooting film.

As it stands now, we can't tape a sheet of 4x5 digital negative to the back of an oats cylinder and teach our young ones how photography works at its very basic heart.

Phil Forrest

Kolame · 10-02-2011

I think, it's best to distribute our money, if we want to keep as much of analog alive as possible. Give some to Ilford, they produce for us (and they aren't in good health…). I'm not so sure about Fuji, my feeling is, they will just cut down everything in a while either way. So buy Kodak. But don't forget to support companies like Efke, who aren't big, but have to offer something!

Lilserenity · 10-02-2011

If Kodak goes the way of the Dodo, I'll carry on with Ilford for B&W as I have done for some time, but for colour I'll feel sad...and unless I can start getting on with Fuji, I think it's time to seriously consider a digital SLR, and hunker down with learning how to get the results I want from it.

useless generation · 10-02-2011

This really sucks, i thought Kodak were heading in a good direction with their color films. The new Portra and Ektar films are fantastic and it would be a real shame to see them go! Ive never really thought much of the Fuji color films.

sevo · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM

As Tom said much of the 50's and 60's were captured on Tri-X. But the bulk of the imagery captured during the 20th century was on Kodak film.

Even in the US Kodak weren't that dominant for most of the 20th century - at times, big competitors like Ansco or Dupont had quite significant market shares, and the many small makers accounted for a lot too. Elsewhere Kodak often did not even enter the market until the sixties or seventies - the film markets in the bigger European countries still were dominated by national makers up into the sixties to nineties. And even that still is a Euro-American biased view that does not account for the majority of the global population that lived in parts of the planet where Kodak film was unobtainable.

Peter Wijninga · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Is anybody concerned that they may stop making oil paints since this fancy acrylic stuff came out?

Yeah, I've read that before but it is a romantic comparison... and nonsense: film production has its own economy of scale realities...you'll have to produce/market/sell a lot of it to make a decent profit.

slumry · 10-02-2011

Must have Portra!

bwcolor · 10-02-2011

I understand that until relatively recently, the color blue was so expensive that artist could not afford to paint using blue paint. Somehow, they produced artwork that is still admired today.

As the film supply world dwindles, the remaining players will be strengthened in that fewer companies supply the market. It should go on like this until film, like the blue pigment, is not affordable.

A more realistic concern are the zeros and ones sitting on some form of digital media. Much of the public will be shocked to find that their child's birthing video is unreadable.

back alley · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Hicks

Sorry, this is complete and utter twaddle. In what way is the disappearance of ANY medium good for ANY art? Does everyone want 'interactive' photographs, whatever they may be? And are you utterly unfamiliar with 'creative tension', or of choosing a medium and working with it? YOU don't like it, and you therefore presume to tell EVERYONE what to do.

Cheers,

R.

history is made...roger and i agree!

hendriphile · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by tunalegs

I don't think Kodak will ever be completely gone. You can bet that even in the worst case scenario some company would end up producing at least a couple of the products - or at the very least using the trademarks. The Tri-X trademark is probably too valuable for anybody to let it die.

Perhaps something analogous to Voigtlander... a great name in German optics, older than Leica, perhaps even older than Kodak... which went belly-up and then was resurrected (even to their design lettering) by Cosina.

Kolame · 10-02-2011

hendriphile, right, but think of Agfa e.g. as well… If Kodak goes that way, it'd be a shame!

dbarnes · 10-02-2011

It's true, Kodak as a name would be likely to be scooped up by someone and used. You can still buy things badged as Westinghouse and Sylvania and Polaroid, those names supplying a brand image that usually seems to have little or nothing to do with the goods.

But more tactically: If Polaroid SX70 film manufacturing can be resurrected by a successor company, I'd bet that 35mm Tri-X manufacturing also could be.

Kolame · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbarnes

[…]

But more tactically: If Polaroid SX70 film manufacturing can be resurrected by a successor company, I'd bet that 35mm Tri-X manufacturing also could be.

It's not that easy. Look for how long Adox tries to get up APX again. They've got Agfa-engineers and aren't finished with the APX 400 and haven't even started with APX 100.
(http://www.adox.de/ADOX_Filme/Premiu...ADOXAP400.html and http://www.adox.de/ADOX_Filme/Premiu...ADOXAP100.html)

Nigel Meaby · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kolame

It's not that easy. Look for how long Adox tries to get up APX again. They've got Agfa-engineers and aren't finished with the APX 400 and haven't even started with APX 100.
(http://www.adox.de/ADOX_Filme/Premiu...ADOXAP400.html and http://www.adox.de/ADOX_Filme/Premiu...ADOXAP100.html)

How about these?
http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/agfa-photo-384-c.asp

sevo · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nigel Meaby

How about these?
http://www.ag-photographic.co.uk/agfa-photo-384-c.asp

That is still the old stuff, cut from stored master rolls, marketed by the company that was the old AgfaPhoto marketing department and trademarks.

Adox and Inoviscoat are restarting APX400 production. However Inoviscoat, as a management buyout of the latest Agfa production line at the time of insolvency, don't own the old Agfa b&w plant, but have a much more modern factory than ever used for APX, and a five year hiatus thrown in - so they cannot simply continue were Agfa left off.

Harman, who went on directly with the Ilford plants, products and staff, had a much smoother transition after Ilford went bankrupt.

Bob Michaels · 10-02-2011

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwcolor

..............................
As the film supply world dwindles, the remaining players will be strengthened in that fewer companies supply the market. It should go on like this until film, like the blue pigment, is not affordable.
..........................

Yes! Everyone seems to be forgetting that Fujifilm, Ilford and a number of other companies make very acceptable substitutes for Tri-X and other Kodak films.