Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Rochester Democrat and Chronicle)   Kodak will shut down its acetate base manufacturing as the company prepares to get out of the camera film business. In other news, there's a still a camera film business to get out of   (democratandchronicle.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, Eastman Kodak, answering machine, cassette tapes, bankruptcy court  
•       •       •

619 clicks; posted to Business » on 14 Jun 2013 at 9:24 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-14 08:22:12 AM  
You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-06-14 09:07:46 AM  
You can't beat the warmth, clicks, pops, hisses, and scratches of analog.
 
2013-06-14 09:28:04 AM  
Hey, there are still old people using AOL dial-up.
 
2013-06-14 09:59:45 AM  
FTA: "Because of the discontinued acetate base work, Rochester-based Kodak filed a Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification notice with the state Labor Department earlier this month indicating it would be laying off 61 workers by the end of August. "

I didn't think there were 61 left.
 
2013-06-14 10:03:41 AM  
Imagine inventing the tech that buries you.
 
2013-06-14 10:12:01 AM  
How else can I show my junk to the cute girl behind the photo counter at CVS?
 
2013-06-14 10:12:50 AM  
I drive by Kodak headquarters every day going to work. It's sad how far they've fallen, and we sometimes wonder just what's keeping them afloat. The movie industry won't be using film for too much longer. So who's buying their stuff?
 
2013-06-14 10:23:53 AM  
film can still achieve resolution far higher than digital.
 
2013-06-14 10:25:01 AM  
How we used to argue over FujiFilm versus Kodak. The screaming, the tussling, the pulling of film out of canisters.
 
2013-06-14 10:33:50 AM  
According to the Article, theuy are shutting down the Acetate plant because they have enough in the warehouses to last for years.  Makes sense too me.
 
2013-06-14 10:54:50 AM  
These guys sat on digital cameras in the 70s and 80s. Rochester could be a booming center for digital imaging today. Instead we have a few grad students who are all planning to leave as soon as they finish their PhDs. It's a weird place to be in your 30s and single. Everyone is either a college student, on welfare, or working in health care or at one of the universities. It's a school/hospital economy, but neither of those sectors actually create wealth. The only reason Rochester survives is because a lot of you come from out of state and bring your parents' money into our city via tuition.
 
2013-06-14 11:14:57 AM  

Tommy Moo: These guys sat on digital cameras in the 70s and 80s. Rochester could be a booming center for digital imaging today. Instead we have a few grad students who are all planning to leave as soon as they finish their PhDs. It's a weird place to be in your 30s and single. Everyone is either a college student, on welfare, or working in health care or at one of the universities. It's a school/hospital economy, but neither of those sectors actually create wealth. The only reason Rochester survives is because a lot of you come from out of state and bring your parents' money into our city via tuition.


There's a lot of truth in what you say.
I always assumed you were from Buffalo, though.
I work in IT but it's in the healthcare industry.  Wife is currently studying Chemistry in college (thank you GI Bill.)
Every single person I grew up with that had family working at either Kodak or Xerox,  have either moved away or ended up on unemployment for long stretches of time.
 
2013-06-14 12:00:29 PM  

doublesecretprobation: film can still achieve resolution far higher than digital.


That depends a lot on the quality of the film, the ISO you're shooting on, quality of the lighting, and a lot of other things. Yes, the theoretical resolution of film is still a bit beyond what digital is capable of, but they're closing that gap rapidly. Even my aging D90 can replicate the grain size of typical ISO-100 color film. Some of the nicest black-and-white films are still sharper, but honestly, at that point the film is sharper than the photographer. Odds are you won't be able to produce better results than digital unless you have some immaculately calibrated equipment and forget trying to do it outdoors. Even today's best vibration-stabilized optics aren't quite good enough to completely eliminate photographer error.

And then, of course, there's the difficulty of getting about 30 shots per roll of film vs 3,000 shots at the same clarity on a memory card. Just stick the DSLR on drive and snap 20 images where you'd snap one with film, and increase your odds of getting a "perfect" shot.

The reason to use film over digital is not the quality but rather the look of film. Even clever filtering in photoshop doesn't quite replicate the look of film grain, or the subtle imperfections that give a particular shot character. Much of art photography is about the spontaneity and the interesting "mistakes."
 
2013-06-14 12:35:29 PM  

Hunter4242: So who's buying their stuff?


Industry.  Dental x-ray machines are expensive, and it will be cheaper to keep buying film until the things finally wear out.  When a camera is mounted to a wall, and unlikely to be dropped, it can last a long, long time.
 
2013-06-14 01:17:36 PM  

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The reason to use film over digital is not the quality but rather the look of film. Even clever filtering in photoshop doesn't quite replicate the look of film grain, or the subtle imperfections that give a particular shot character. Much of art photography is about the spontaneity and the interesting "mistakes."


yeah, yeah, and vinyl records are better because "warmth".

/bullcrap

//there is nothing these days that is truly superior about film over digital if you invest in a good camera.  fortunately, unlike with idiots and vinyl, there will never be a "film revolution" where hipsters start buying 35mm film again because there is absolutely no point in it whatsoever. film is DEAD.  Good riddance.
 
2013-06-14 01:26:00 PM  

dittybopper: You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.


And I still use a riding crop.
 
2013-06-14 01:51:23 PM  
But I still have my Advantix camera around somewhere with the Advanced Photo System.

Oooh, I can take panorama shots...
 
2013-06-14 02:18:53 PM  

doublesecretprobation: film can still achieve resolution far higher than digital.


You certain about that?  The grain size of 100 ISO 36mmx24mm film works out to somewhere between 4 and 16 MP, and full frame digital now exceeds this by quite a bit.  If it is dynamic range you are looking for, digital photography can create HDR images that blow film out of the water as well.  There is a reason that professionals have gone digital for "35mm" work.  Cost will keep film alive in medium and large format for a while yet.
 
2013-06-14 02:42:47 PM  

frepnog: //there is nothing these days that is truly superior about film over digital if you invest in a good camera.  fortunately, unlike with idiots and vinyl, there will never be a "film revolution" where hipsters start buying 35mm film again because there is absolutely no point in it whatsoever. film is DEAD.  Good riddance.


Really?  You must have missed out on the Lomography fad.  I agree with you that the merits of film are debatable for normal use but in some cases the look of film grain is far preferable.
 
2013-06-14 02:44:27 PM  

flondrix: doublesecretprobation: film can still achieve resolution far higher than digital.

You certain about that?  The grain size of 100 ISO 36mmx24mm film works out to somewhere between 4 and 16 MP, and full frame digital now exceeds this by quite a bit.  If it is dynamic range you are looking for, digital photography can create HDR images that blow film out of the water as well.  There is a reason that professionals have gone digital for "35mm" work.  Cost will keep film alive in medium and large format for a while yet.


Panoramic. Macro. Biological. Portrait.

Digital can't hold a flaming midget drenched in kerosene against film in those areas... only for "point-n-ruin" camera work does it offer anywhere near a similar degree of chromatic fidelity or field depth (those are "F-Stops" for the noobs) - as for the HDR argument - it's also not true. Color gradiation and radically skewed white values and black levels alter the visual pane and form of the image.

Digital *IS* getting there, but film will still be superior for people Who Know What The Fark They Are Doing With a Hasselblad/Leica until 2020 at the earliest.

/Hell, Leica's M9 is an archival camera... and NO INSTITUTION USES IT! (Considering it was purpose-built for The Louvre, MoMA and The Guggenheim... this is kind of funny!)
 
2013-06-14 02:55:03 PM  

Jedekai: Leica's M9


Isn't that the one that costs 8 grand and looks like you fished it out of your grandfather's junk drawer?
 
2013-06-14 03:00:46 PM  

Magnus: dittybopper: You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.

And I still use a riding crop.


I still use Morse code.

No, seriously, I do.  A lot.
 
2013-06-14 03:04:26 PM  

dittybopper: Magnus: dittybopper: You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.

And I still use a riding crop.

I still use Morse code.

No, seriously, I do.  A lot.


Expanding on this, I know people who sail boats, ride horses, and do all manner of obsolete things for fun
 
2013-06-14 03:06:08 PM  

Jedekai: Digital *IS* getting there, but film will still be superior for people Who Know What The Fark They Are Doing With a Hasselblad/Leica until 2020 at the earliest.


Leica sells rebranded Panasonic cameras.  And Hasselblad, rebranded Sony.
 
2013-06-14 03:10:40 PM  

Jedekai: Digital can't hold a flaming midget drenched in kerosene against film in those areas... only for "point-n-ruin" camera work does it offer anywhere near a similar degree of chromatic fidelity or field depth


It sounds like only black and white film can challenge the spatial resolution of digital, and that has no chromatic fidelity at all.
 
2013-06-14 03:40:54 PM  

Hunter4242: I drive by Kodak headquarters every day going to work. It's sad how far they've fallen, and we sometimes wonder just what's keeping them afloat. The movie industry won't be using film for too much longer. So who's buying their stuff?


They own tons of patents for, among other things, digital imaging technology.
 
2013-06-14 03:56:47 PM  

TheGreatGazoo: But I still have my Advantix camera around somewhere with the Advanced Photo System.

Oooh, I can take panorama shots...


My EOS IX laughs at your shenanigans ...
 
2013-06-14 03:57:08 PM  
Consumables tend to run down quite a while after the technology becomes effectively redundant. Yesterday in the supermarket someone asked if they stocked blank VHS tapes.
 
2013-06-14 04:01:37 PM  

dittybopper: You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.


black and white photography still demands film, it's hard to replicate

maybe someday somebody will figure it out, it kind of needs to happen what with everybody abandoning film manufacturing
 
2013-06-14 04:04:41 PM  

DrPainMD: Hunter4242: I drive by Kodak headquarters every day going to work. It's sad how far they've fallen, and we sometimes wonder just what's keeping them afloat. The movie industry won't be using film for too much longer. So who's buying their stuff?

They own tons of patents for, among other things, digital imaging technology.




Doomed to being called patent trolls.
 
2013-06-14 04:11:31 PM  

xria: Consumables tend to run down quite a while after the technology becomes effectively redundant. Yesterday in the supermarket someone asked if they stocked blank VHS tapes.


School.
 
2013-06-14 04:14:17 PM  
Kodak just placed two (small) orders with my company within the last two weeks (1 today).  They used to be our #2 or #3 customer just a few years ago.  Haven't seen an order from them since 2011 I think.

Note: It's for their inkjet printing division.

/kicks
/Gettin' them
 
2013-06-14 04:34:02 PM  

frepnog: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The reason to use film over digital is not the quality but rather the look of film. Even clever filtering in photoshop doesn't quite replicate the look of film grain, or the subtle imperfections that give a particular shot character. Much of art photography is about the spontaneity and the interesting "mistakes."

yeah, yeah, and vinyl records are better because "warmth".

/bullcrap

//there is nothing these days that is truly superior about film over digital if you invest in a good camera.  fortunately, unlike with idiots and vinyl, there will never be a "film revolution" where hipsters start buying 35mm film again because there is absolutely no point in it whatsoever. film is DEAD.  Good riddance.


I have a canon 5d mark 2, which is a terrific digital camera, but I still think that for black and white work it can't touch my hasselblad or crown graphic. I will say the high iso stuff for digital smokes film. But unless I want to invest huge money and time into Epson ink sets, then my digital prints are limited to 12 by 18. Whatever. I steal mp3s and buy vinyl from touring bands, and really, I usually just give a fark about the song.
 
2013-06-14 04:37:42 PM  

AdamK: dittybopper: You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.

black and white photography still demands film, it's hard to replicate

maybe someday somebody will figure it out, it kind of needs to happen what with everybody abandoning film manufacturing


Getting black and white film is no problem. Kodak's problem is that their manufacturing facilities were scaled up to make film in quantities far higher than the existing demand for it, and now they can't run the plants efficiently.

People who want high quality black and white film get it from Ilford in the UK, which can profitably produce it in quantities that meet today's demand levels. There are other second- and third-world countries where usable B&W film is made. It's easy to make and chemically stable. I don't think we'll ever see the end of B&W film.

The real problem is color. The economics of color film chemistry simply don't work if the stuff doesn't sell. Right now what's out there is either really low-end (<$2/roll) meant to be sold in third-world countries, and high-end stuff. Those dynamics may last for awhile, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see the end of color film production within the next 15 years. Only Kodak and Fuji are big enough to operate a color film business and I don't think either one wants to be in that line of business very much.
 
2013-06-14 04:44:26 PM  
Mama don't take my Kodachrome away...
 
2013-06-14 04:49:57 PM  
My school had a transmission electron microscope that still used regular film.

Sure you could retrofit it with a digital system, but the grant is in for buying a new TEM in a year anyway.
Too bad no one makes high resolution film for anything other than arm and a leg prices.

From what I understand the main way we kept it going was by buying up all the old film from other people upgrading old systems.
 
2013-06-14 04:59:17 PM  

AdamK: black and white photography still demands film, it's hard to replicate


Agreed.  I don't do much photography any more.  I was (pardon my ego) pretty damn good using B&W film.  When I got a very good $800 digital camera back in the day, I couldn't take good (art) photos worth a damn.

I was fine using it to take photos at my friends' concerts or whatever.  But for art, I just couldn't master digital.
 
2013-06-14 05:03:38 PM  

frepnog: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: The reason to use film over digital is not the quality but rather the look of film. Even clever filtering in photoshop doesn't quite replicate the look of film grain, or the subtle imperfections that give a particular shot character. Much of art photography is about the spontaneity and the interesting "mistakes."

yeah, yeah, and vinyl records are better because "warmth".

/bullcrap

//there is nothing these days that is truly superior about film over digital if you invest in a good camera.  fortunately, unlike with idiots and vinyl, there will never be a "film revolution" where hipsters start buying 35mm film again because there is absolutely no point in it whatsoever. film is DEAD.  Good riddance.


This.
 
2013-06-14 05:11:08 PM  
Film still has a few uses.  I do the occasional mud run, and if I took either my phone or a small digital camera out on the course with me, they would be trashed in about five minutes.  For those type of events, I'll buy a cheap waterproof disposable camera.  But it's getting harder to find places that will develop the film. I bought the camera at Target but had to go to WalMart to get it developed.  Three different Targets and two CVS stores no longer took film at their camera stations.
 
2013-06-14 06:53:56 PM  

quizzical: For those type of events, I'll buy a cheap waterproof disposable camera.


What became of the "disposable" digital cameras?
 
2013-06-14 06:57:48 PM  

AdamK: black and white photography still demands film, it's hard to replicate

maybe someday somebody will figure it out, it kind of needs to happen what with everybody abandoning film manufacturing


There are some high-end B&W-only digital cameras out there, but volume is low and prices are high.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-06-14 07:12:36 PM  
If they can convert a standard DSLR to infrared by removing filters they should be able to convert it to black and white.

Or you can buy an overpriced Leica M.
 
2013-06-14 07:49:50 PM  

TheShavingofOccam123: How we used to argue over FujiFilm versus Kodak. The screaming, the tussling, the pulling of film out of canisters.


what. no Agfa-Gevaert or Konica? c'mon!
 
2013-06-14 08:47:12 PM  

KrispyKritter: TheShavingofOccam123: How we used to argue over FujiFilm versus Kodak. The screaming, the tussling, the pulling of film out of canisters.

what. no Agfa-Gevaert or Konica? c'mon!


Or Ilford?
 
2013-06-14 09:28:50 PM  

flondrix: quizzical: For those type of events, I'll buy a cheap waterproof disposable camera.

What became of the "disposable" digital cameras?


Pics, or it didn't happen.
 
2013-06-14 10:57:47 PM  

dittybopper: You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.


Eh, not really.

I can't remember the last time I saw a photo at a modern photo exhibit at MoMA or the Met that was taken on film.

The quality is there, and it's a lot easier to burn and dodge in photoshop than the darkroom.
 
2013-06-15 12:33:29 AM  

thornhill: dittybopper: You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.

Eh, not really.

I can't remember the last time I saw a photo at a modern photo exhibit at MoMA or the Met that was taken on film.

The quality is there, and it's a lot easier to burn and dodge in photoshop than the darkroom.


thornhill: dittybopper: You'd be surprised.

All of the commercial photographers have gone digital, but some of the artsy-fartsy types still prefer film.

Eh, not really.

I can't remember the last time I saw a photo at a modern photo exhibit at MoMA or the Met that was taken on film.

The quality is there, and it's a lot easier to burn and dodge in photoshop than the darkroom.


Yep.

While I haven't seen anything that looks as good as a large format chrome, no one really needs it, and good luck finding somewhere to process it.

As for B&W, there are still some people using it. The photography show I went to recently featured silver gelatine prints. But the photog couldn't be bothered to spot them. I found that rather distracting.
 
2013-06-15 06:28:04 AM  

doublesecretprobation: film can still achieve resolution far higher than digital.


That's OK. The modern digital photographs we look at are as empty and ugly as the digital music we listen to, which is as empty and ugly as the digital video we watch. We are have become a shallow, empty , ugly people, with the aesthetic sense of pigs. Digital art is good enough for us.
 
2013-06-15 09:30:37 AM  
As long as I can still get flash cubes for my iPhone camera, we're good.
 
2013-06-15 10:33:34 AM  
 I work for a company that still uses film to archive documents.   The government has certain archival requirements that still require microfilm and fiche as there is no digital archive standard yet.  Film will last 70-80 years as long as you store it properly, nobody can say if a PDF will still be readable on most computers 70-80 years from now.

We've had to switch to buying Fuji whatwith Kodak going belly up and at some point the archive requirements will be switch to digital but until then we'll keep printing money as this is pretty profitable.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report