General Photography Chat

[photoLith]

• Video Link

[Robert Pence]

Originally Posted by ue

Neither do I. So strange how different Fuji and Kodak's fates were. Fuji is highly innovative and diversified, while Kodak has tried both those things in the 21st century but failed miserably (doesn't help they, like Minolta diversified too late). And on top of that, Fuji was able to keep what made them popular in the first place (film) much more profitable, especially with a lot more Hollywood films using Fuji over Kodak now (especially for distribution purposes). I do feel sad for the decline of such an iconic and culturally relevant company and the potential loss of some high quality products (which, believe it or not, Kodak does have, it just isn't marketed or financed properly).

I don't think Kodak will go away completely, they seem to be focused on restructuring in order to be a successful, profitable company. Look at AGFA and Ilford (now Ilford Harman Technology), both restructured in completely different ways, but both are still doing well and turning profits (not sure about AGFA on the profits). Or Kodak could pull a Polaroid, with avid fans resurrecting their stuff a la the Impossible Project.

And yeah, the most ironic thing is that they invented their murder weapon.

I think it's unfortunate that along with the loss of iconic Kodachrome and other consumer products that kept them afloat for so long, we're losing some other products that appealed more to serious photographers, like T-Max 100 and Technical Pan Film and an old slow, fine-grain B&W favorite of mine, Panatomic-X. Kodak even sold a black-and-white reversal processing chemistry for developing black-and-white transparencies from Panatomic-X. I suppose it would have worked with any silver-emulsion black-and-white film, but for screen projection of 35mm transparencies with faster films, grain might have been an issue.

[ue]

^ We're potentially loosing them. Until 2013 (based on how long it was said the restructuring would take) these products will still be made and sold. And if their fate is akin to Ilford, they may also be making at least some of those products well beyond 2013. Tri-X, Tmax, Portra, and Ektar are some of the best negative films around, would be a huge loss for them to permanently go away. If Kodak can't keep them afloat, I'm sure someone else could, even just a group of fans. Polaroid did it, why not the much more iconic Kodak? If you're still shooting film, Robert, don't forget there's still Ilford, Fuji, Lucky, Efke, Foma, etc etc. Some of them have emulsions just as good as Kodak.

Kodachrome was a loss, but if everybody who apparently loved it so kept using it, it never would have died. However, not all the fault is on the consumer, Kodak hadn't been promoting Kodachrome for 20 years roughly before it was discontinued. Meanwhile Fuji now has the top slide films, and have for the past 20 years.

[photoLith]

^
I just dont see film being around at all in 10 years; its eventually going to go the way of the dinosaur unfortunately. Maybe it will be made as a specialty product, but that would be ridiculously expensive and then where would you get it developed, unless you had the ability to do it at home.

[ue]

Yeah, film, it's just going to go the way of the dinosaur. You know, just like oil paint and vinyl. Oh wait!

I don't doubt that digital is here to stay, and many digital cameras produce phenomenal results, many threads in the My City Photos are clear evidence of that, but just because that is so and film no longer has the power it did 10+ years ago, doesn't mean it can't survive as a stable niche product. If film were going to die, why is Ilford showing profits? Why hasn't Fuji just scrapped the "deadweight" of their film division? Hell, why have I read that Kodak's film division is marginally profitable, even in 2012?

I think that film will mostly survive as a niche artists product, as artists demand the most choices on which to express themselves. Digital can't give you all that film can, and vise verse and as such both have their place. Keep in mind people have been predicting the demise of film for decades, and so far, everyone has been wrong. But, hey, maybe you're right, who knows what the future holds.

I do agree however that the availability of labs will continue to decline, but it isn't like you can't use a bathroom sink for an hour to do some developing. As for the rolls, sheets, chemicals, enlargers, or whatever else, they can be bought online easy. B&H, Freestyle, Adorama, etc. etc. etc. The local film store is probably going to die in all but a few cities, though (SF, NYC, London, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, HK, Shanghai, Beijing, Tokyo, etc).

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by ue

Neither do I. So strange how different Fuji and Kodak's fates were. Fuji is highly innovative and diversified, while Kodak has tried both those things in the 21st century but failed miserably (doesn't help they, like Minolta diversified too late). And on top of that, Fuji was able to keep what made them popular in the first place (film) much more profitable, especially with a lot more Hollywood films using Fuji over Kodak now (especially for distribution purposes). I do feel sad for the decline of such an iconic and culturally relevant company and the potential loss of some high quality products (which, believe it or not, Kodak does have, it just isn't marketed or financed properly).

I don't think Kodak will go away completely, they seem to be focused on restructuring in order to be a successful, profitable company. Look at AGFA and Ilford (now Ilford Harman Technology), both restructured in completely different ways, but both are still doing well and turning profits (not sure about AGFA on the profits). Or Kodak could pull a Polaroid, with avid fans resurrecting their stuff a la the Impossible Project.

And yeah, the most ironic thing is that they invented their murder weapon.

I highly doubt this will be the end for kodak but serious change is needed for them to survive.

@photolith - I doubt film will die out like dinosaurs. Artists will still use it. There is a certain quality about film and its inherent imperfection that will never die out. I love film cameras. Good ones dont even take batteries.

[Ramsayfarian]

Originally Posted by diskojoe

I highly doubt this will be the end for kodak but serious change is needed for them to survive.

@photolith - I doubt film will die out like dinosaurs. Artists will still use it. There is a certain quality about film and its inherent imperfection that will never die out. I love film cameras. Good ones dont even take batteries.

It doesn't sound like the end for Kodak. Not if they can successfully restructure their business and if they win their lawsuits against Apple, Samsung and HTC. I'm guessing Kodak has a team of people going over all their patents to see what else they can sue for.

"The patent suits, filed in U.S. District Court in Rochester, N.Y., and at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, allege that smartphone makers Apple and HTC violated Kodak patents governing the transmission of photos from devices such as mobile phones and tablets. Kodak also sued Taiwan-based HTC for allegedly infringing patents on image previewing by digital cameras, a claim it already has pending against Apple."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...598025844.html

[Robert Pence]

Originally Posted by ue

^ We're potentially loosing them. Until 2013 (based on how long it was said the restructuring would take) these products will still be made and sold. And if their fate is akin to Ilford, they may also be making at least some of those products well beyond 2013. Tri-X, Tmax, Portra, and Ektar are some of the best negative films around, would be a huge loss for them to permanently go away. If Kodak can't keep them afloat, I'm sure someone else could, even just a group of fans. Polaroid did it, why not the much more iconic Kodak? If you're still shooting film, Robert, don't forget there's still Ilford, Fuji, Lucky, Efke, Foma, etc etc. Some of them have emulsions just as good as Kodak.

Kodachrome was a loss, but if everybody who apparently loved it so kept using it, it never would have died. However, not all the fault is on the consumer, Kodak hadn't been promoting Kodachrome for 20 years roughly before it was discontinued. Meanwhile Fuji now has the top slide films, and have for the past 20 years.

Actually, in later years I became less enamored of Kodachrome. I may sound like an old curmudgeon here (because I am one), but I think the slippery slope was entered upon when Kodachrome II (25 ASA) came out. Until 1962, Kodachrome was 10 ASA (ASA = ISO), and although it placed some demands on the photographer, the surviving images captured with it testify to its saturation and longevity. Kodachrome 25 never quite measured up, in my opinion, and Kodachrome 64 didn't even measure up to that.

I've shot some Fuji film; in 35mm color negative, I think Fuji Reala 100 is the bee's knees. It has realistic color rendition, fine grain, good exposure latitude, and scans very nicely. Thing is, I can get better-than-35mm quality nowadays with digital, and paying careful attention helps to get beyond digital's narrower latitude, compared with film.

I've shot Fuji Provia 100F in medium format with excellent results, and still would be doing it if I had a local custom lab where I could get it processed. I'm not favorably disposed toward shipping it off to Chicago, and although I've done E-6 processing (in the kitchen with a Nikor tank and a camp cooler to stabilize temperatures, no less) I have better things to do with my time; that's an arduous process. My twin-lens Rolleis and Mamiya 7 have languished for quite a while, and I probably should get them out and give them some exercise with some black & white film; I could process that at home without a lot of bother.

[wrab]

^ 10 asa!

[diskojoe]

Definitely break out the ROLLEI! Those are awesome cameras. As for developing there has to be some photog in your area or at least closer then Chicago that could help you out with this. You are in kind of a remote area though.

[diskojoe]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

It doesn't sound like the end for Kodak. Not if they can successfully restructure their business and if they win their lawsuits against Apple, Samsung and HTC. I'm guessing Kodak has a team of people going over all their patents to see what else they can sue for.

"The patent suits, filed in U.S. District Court in Rochester, N.Y., and at the U.S. International Trade Commission in Washington, allege that smartphone makers Apple and HTC violated Kodak patents governing the transmission of photos from devices such as mobile phones and tablets. Kodak also sued Taiwan-based HTC for allegedly infringing patents on image previewing by digital cameras, a claim it already has pending against Apple."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...598025844.html

I could see this having significant impact on their future success if the decisions are in their favor.

[ue]

So I'm curious, as photographers that do more than post personal snapshots on Facebook, how do you archive your photo files so that in 10, 25, or 50 years you'll be able to look back on them just as you do now? Do you do multiple back ups? Store files on off site locations?

I guess with how relatively new digital photography is, it is still up in the air as to how it will age and how easy it will be for people to look back on their adventures in life. I wonder if the masses that aren't serious and do just the aforementioned Facebook snaps will have much if any memories in 25 years. I mean, if Facebook dies, inevitably many will loose their memories as many people don't do additional back ups or have the files lost on old computers and memory sticks.

One thing's for certain, it isn't as simple as putting some prints and negatives in a shoebox and not touching them for decades anymore. For example, it is extremely recommended to re-back up files onto new hard drives, CDs, DVDs, SD cards, etc. every 2-5 years so that the files don't become unreadable.

[photoLith]

^
I back up all my new photos about every 2 weeks on a two terrabyte external hard drive I have. I take tons of photos and theres no way in the future that Ill have the time to look at all of them and such. So, I pick out my best photos and save those in a separate folder, the originals and the worked on photos.



Ive got a question, in the above picture I took last night, notice how the sky doesnt smoothly meld together from color to color, but its rather in bands changing from one color to the next. How do I fix this. I just looked at the setting in my camera and it was on 12 bit color and sRGB and it was just a jpg. I changed my settings to 14 bit raw files, and RGB colors. Will this help fix this problem? Also, I had the D700 set at 100 iso and yet, the sky still seems very pixilated.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Redunancy is key, of course. I back mine up on an external drive. I also save high-res versions of edited shots on my computer at work. And I email myself those shots as well. You could open an entire gmail account just for that purpose.

[Okayyou]

Originally Posted by photoLith

^
I back up all my new photos about every 2 weeks on a two terrabyte external hard drive I have. I take tons of photos and theres no way in the future that Ill have the time to look at all of them and such. So, I pick out my best photos and save those in a separate folder, the originals and the worked on photos.



Ive got a question, in the above picture I took last night, notice how the sky doesnt smoothly meld together from color to color, but its rather in bands changing from one color to the next. How do I fix this. I just looked at the setting in my camera and it was on 12 bit color and sRGB and it was just a jpg. I changed my settings to 14 bit raw files, and RGB colors. Will this help fix this problem? Also, I had the D700 set at 100 iso and yet, the sky still seems very pixilated.

I dont see the bands, could be your viewing device. I dont think banding woukd show up at 12 bit. You could see it if your monitor is 8bit, it's been a while since i read up on this, you might want to google it. If file size or time isnt an issue i dont know why you would shoot in jpeg. You lose info when the camera processes the data into jpeg. Be careful when selecting a color profile. Some browsers dont handle certain color profiles well and your pics will look desaturated.

[bulliver]

Yeah, must be the device you are viewing it with. I see no bands, just a nice smooth gradient as it should be.

[photoLith]

It must be my computer, I'm now viewing this with my iPad and I'm not seeing what I was before and it looks smooth. My computer must just be 8 bit color or something.

[glowrock]

Yeah, I fail to see any issues with that photo, PhotoLith. Actually, it looks simply amazing!

Aaron (Glowrock)

[photoLith]

^
Thanks, thats in old town Spring north of Houston. Dont know if youve ever been there but its pretty cool, very touristy but lots of good old restored Victorian and arts and crafts houses there.

[flar]

You should shoot RAW anyway, especially since you do so many night shots (white balance adjustment). I regret shooting jpegs for so many years. Now every time I have to print or publish one of my older photos I have to deal with the limitations of jpegs.