Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Technology

Kodak To Stop Selling Film Cameras In U.S. 656

Posted by timothy from the pixels-are-cheaper-than-film dept.
MikeDataLink writes "Kodak has announced today that they are no longer going to sell or manufacture film based cameras in the USA or Europe (except for disposables) and instead concentrate on Digital cameras. It looks like consumers have spoken and film is finally going to go the way of the dinosaur."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Kodak To Stop Selling Film Cameras In U.S. More

Kodak To Stop Selling Film Cameras In U.S.

Comments Filter:
  • I have a crystal ball, and I predict most replies to this story will wax romantic about how much better film is than digital.

    • Re:Number 1 subject will be... (Score:5, Informative)

      by throughthewire ( 675776 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:20PM (#7968205) Homepage
      I have a crystal ball, and I predict most replies to this story will wax romantic about how much better film is than digital.

      You don't really need a crystal ball for that - especially when it happens to be true. Even though prices continue to come down, and memory and resolution continue to increase, I still can't afford to purchase a digital camera which could equal my old Nikon in image quality, color fidelity, and responsiveness.

      Nevertheless, for day-to-day photography my wife's Canon digital camera is perfectly adequate, and I imagine many consumers feel the same way.

      Kodak has been losing market share to Fuji for quite a while anyway, especially in the professional market. Kodak has been investing a lot of money and research in "Digital Color Science" for well over a decade - they've been preparing to abandon film for a long time.

  • demise of film... not... yet (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fireteller2 ( 712795 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:09PM (#7968075) Homepage
    I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera. Not that I debate that they exist, but rather that we should all just keep this announcement in perspective. A film company announcing that it will stop selling cameras is like a shipping company saying it's going to stop selling ships. Much more note worthy is that they were trying to sell them in the first place.

    This is what the financial blokes refer to as a false indicator, especially if anyone reads the decline of film into it. Kodak has never been good at selling cameras (well perhaps it the 50s and 60s for a bit). Getting out of that business is a good move for them regardless of the viability of the film market.

    fire
    • It 's news to me that Kodak even made non-disposable cameras at all.
      • Well, I don't know if I would go this far. But if you read the article (which I would venture to say MOST people have not done who are posting here). This is not an article that says 'Kodak dumping film for digital'. It says 'Kodak is losing money, they don't make money on cameras, so they are getting out of that business.'

        I don't see film dying for a long time, even in a consumer role. There is something much nicer having a photo, not a digital picture.
    • Exactly, plus, there will always be a company or two who sell film cameras to those who prefer it for whatever reason, artistic or otherwise. Look, medium and large format cameras are still available and they were popular in the late 1800s.

    • Re:demise of film... not... yet (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dav3K ( 618318 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:12PM (#7968119)
      The announcement also did NOT say Kodak was going to slow down or stop the production of film in any way. I suspect that corner of their business will continue to thrive in the US and Europe for quite some time yet.
      • The announcement also did NOT say Kodak was going to slow down or stop the production of film in any way. I suspect that corner of their business will continue to thrive in the US and Europe for quite some time yet.

        I presume Kodak makes as much film as they sell, and I guarantee that film sales have fallen. As such, I'm sure their production has been gradually slowing for a few years now.

    • So everything that gets reported must be "human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!".

    • If they had announced that they won't be making film anymore this would be an interesting announcement. As it is, this is like Cheveron or Shell announcing that they aren't going to make automobiles anymore without mentioning if they are going to stop selling gasoline or not.
    • A film company announcing that it will stop selling cameras is like a shipping company saying it's going to stop selling ships.
      Actually, if you read the article again you'll see that Kodak made 50% of all the world's APS cameras. And while APS was never as big as 35MM, this is significant.

      • APS film (Score:3, Informative)

        by he-sk ( 103163 )
        APS was basically a plot to shove an inferior product down the consumers throat using hype.

        It's cited advantages where:
        1) the film stays in the the cartrigde
        2) you can rewind a film that is not fully exposed and use it later again
        3) there is some information stored on the magnetic strip (date, exposure, etc.)
        4) smaller cameras

        Note that the only advantage to consumers is that they don't have to store the film strips but the cartridge. Big deal. Oh yeah, and the film remembers the date.

        Which are n

    • Re:demise of film... not... yet (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Kosgrove ( 75723 ) <jkodroff&mail,com> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:28PM (#7968295)
      Kodak cameras have always been of below-average quality AFAIK (even dating back to the 1930's), so it's not like they're giving up on what was previously known as their staple product.

      When a company known for their cameras, like Nikon, Cannon, Pentax, etc. gives up on "analog" cameras, then we'll really be reaching a milestone. However, I suspect that will never happen (or not happen anytime soon) due to the usefulness of analog cameras in photography as an art.

      To make what in my view is a very clever analogy (because I thought of it), it's like turntables - they won't ever stop being produced altogether because of their demand in artistic (i.e. DJ) circles. However, I'm sure that we'll see the number of companies that develop film decrease over time. If I were Ritz Camera (a popular one-hour photo chain the northeastern US), I might be getting rather scared.

      • Re:demise of film... not... yet (Score:5, Informative)

        by rlk ( 1089 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @08:16PM (#7968752)
        Canon, which does no small digital business, continues to introduce new film cameras -- even low-end SLR's, which would seem to be the most vulnerable to competition from digital. They've recently introduced the Rebel K2 and Rebel G II which are both lower-end versions of the Rebel Ti (Canon has used the Rebel name in the US for about 13 years for their entry-level SLR). Evidently the Rebel Ti was getting just a bit too high-end for comfort. These are all film cameras, by the way.

        As others have noted, Kodak getting out of film cameras means nothing. APS has been a well-deserved failure, and Kodak really hasn't built any interesting 35 mm cameras lately.

        (I just got a Rebel Digital, which is based on the Rebel Ti body. It's a much, much better camera than my first SLR, a Rebel XS. It's more solid, has better controls, a metal lens mount, much shorter shutter lag and faster drive and in some ways a better autofocus system than my EOS 1N, their previous top of the line prior to the 1V. The controls are still deliberately dumbed down so that they don't completely destroy the market for the Elan, but both the film and digital versions of this camera are very innovative indeed.)

    • It's the CCDs (Score:5, Informative)

      by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:31PM (#7968321) Homepage Journal
      What you may not realize is that Kodak makes a great deal of royalties off of most CCDs manufactured. The have the patents on color filter gels that are placed down with photolithography over the CCDs (and CMOS?) that go into most digital cameras.

      I suspect they make tons more on this than any profits from cameras they would make.

    • Re:demise of film... not... yet (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fishbowl ( 7759 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:38PM (#7968385)
      "I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera."

      *EVERYBODY* had a Brownie, including me.
      And then, *EVERYBODY* had a Brownie 8mm camera,
      including me. I still have these.

      When 126 film came out, Kodak enjoyed great sales of Instamatics. Polaroid, around 1969 if I remember correctly, had a great run that probably hurt Kodak seriously. "Squeeze and turn knob to best YES." Remember that?

      Then 110 film came out. Again, the Kodak instamatic was EVERYWHERE.

      I used to be an avid photographer, but once I smelled the air in a town with a film plant, I decided I couldn't support it anymore. I've been around all kinds of chemical plants, plastics mfg, etc. But the Kodak plant in Longview Texas takes the cake. That town is not just toxic, it's excruciatingly painful just to drive through on the interstate with your windows up and the vents sealed. The idea that anyone can live within 20 miles of that place really shocks me.

      I don't think you have to be much of a tree hugger to be appalled by this. Even if you don't think there's health risks or environmental consequences, it's gotta be enough just that it's plain gross. Yet people live there, somehow or another.
    • I had one as a kid. In like 1975 or something. I remember it breaking and I was pretty upset for a while.

      Anyway, who cares it they stop selling cameras? Just as long as they keep selling film. If, in the future, they stop producing 35mm film, they're only going to hurt themselves. I'm sure that someone like the guys at Fuji will be smart enough to continue to make it, and in turn will suck up all Kodak's old business.

      I really like digital photography, but I don't think that it's a suitable replacement for
    • I personally have never owned, and I have never known anyone who owned, a non-disposable Kodak camera.

      That says more about your age and perhaps social background than photography. For a long time Kodac was cheap snapshot photography.

      I have never owned, nor knew anyone who owned a Triumph motorcycle, but that doesn't mean that the end of the British motorcycle industry in the 70s didn't indicate the end point of a profound shift (in that case the rise of Japan).

      What this announcement indicates is that

  • Fim is not gone yet.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by endus ( 698588 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:10PM (#7968080)
    Film is not going the way of the dinosaur...you guys always have to take it to a level. The creative market still has a use for film, and I know plenty of people for whom digital is not yet good enough...
  • Good think I use a 1950's Stereo Realist. I hope they continue to sell film for a while longer, or at least offer a digital stereo camera someday. It's hard to make ViewMaster reels digitally.

  • Not quite film yet.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:10PM (#7968090) Homepage Journal
    Film still has the ability to store information that digital formats will take years to catch up to. For instance, my grandfather was in the OSS in WWII and had a collection of photographs he gave to me after he passed away. Going to the film (and even the prints), I am able to apply some image forensics pull out detail that would never be possible with digital images. There are street names, ID numbers on planes and names on nametags that I have been able to pull out to date photographs and identify individuals that has been a tremendous advantage in reconstructing his career with the Service. Through this analysis, I have been able to place him in places that history has labeled as occupied territory at time, identify other folks that he worked with etc....

    Also, digital photography while convenient has archival issues just like traditional silver based photography and one has to wonder if we are going to have the same historical record 50, 60 or 100 years from now that we currently have.

    • one has to wonder if we are going to have the same historical record 50, 60 or 100 years from now that we currently have

      . .. not if Bill Gates and Corbis have anything to say about it. . .

      • Re:Not quite film yet.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by donutello ( 88309 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:26PM (#7968277) Homepage
        Get your facts straight. Bill Gates and Corbis are the ones saving [digitaljournalist.org] the images for historical record - not the ones destroying it.

        • Re:Not quite film yet.... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by sakusha ( 441986 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:21PM (#7969251)
          Oh bulllshit. BillG and Corbis are only in it for the money. The REAL people who are preserving images for the historical record work at the Getty Museum. Their goal is to have an archival photograph of every known artwork in the world. They primarily use B&W prints since those are the most stable. They built an underground vault at the new museum in Santa Monica to store all the prints, it's designed to survive a direct nuclear attack on LA. It should be noted that photographs can survive an EMP but no digital media can.

    • Also, digital photography while convenient has archival issues just like traditional silver based photography and one has to wonder if we are going to have the same historical record 50, 60 or 100 years from now that we currently have.

      It might not be all bad. Digital photographs have the potential to last in pristine condition forever (as long as you keep copying them to new media). Also since they're so cheap to take and store we might have many more photographs for our historical record. With some

      • Re:Not quite film yet.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:24PM (#7968242) Homepage Journal
        It might not be all bad. Digital photographs have the potential to last in pristine condition forever (as long as you keep copying them to new media). Also since they're so cheap to take and store we might have many more photographs for our historical record. With some advanced image processing image searching and sorting could be great tools to historians as well.

        You are right about this to some extent. The problem with media and digital storage is that history is proving that digital media has a much shorter lifespan than other forms of record keeping such as paper and photographic records. CDs are not good for 75-100 years as advertised in many cases. This is why standards are so important and open source of those standards so that there are as many possible copies of data in open formats that do not disappear over time.

        • The media has a short lifespan, but the data doesn't. The nice thing about digital is infinite perfect copies (as I mentioned in my original reply).

          As long as storage density keeps increasing most people will do what I do. Every time I get a new computer I copy all of my old data off the old one. I do make some backups on CD but all the data I really care about is on my hard drive.

          We are going to lose some data to bad digital media, yes.

          As an aside I remember reading somewhere about a recently discove

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @08:09PM (#7968678)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Remember (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ucblockhead ( 63650 )
      Remember that joe consumer doesn't care about that. Joe consumer just wants to take pictures of his kids birthday party.

      You are right that it will be a long, long time before real photographers use digital. But I believe that we are only a few years before the bulk of consumer photography is digital.

      • Re:Remember (Score:5, Informative)

        by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:27PM (#7968284) Homepage Journal
        You are right that it will be a long, long time before real photographers use digital. But I believe that we are only a few years before the bulk of consumer photography is digital.

        I am actually a "real" photographer who has embraced digital photography due to its convenience and cost issues. I was raised on standard B&W and color film photography in 35mm and large format photography and have a passion for those formats as well. But digital does have its place in semi-pro and pro shooting. In fact, a recent National Geographic article on flight was shot entirely with digital cameras and Apple Powerbook computers.

        • Re:Remember (Score:3, Informative)

          by p0d ( 56980 )
          The article in question was shot with a 5 MP Nikon D1X, which is their highest-resolution digital SLR to date. Now for the size of the Geographic, the camera's resolution was just fine.

          I like to consider myself a "real" photographer. I take photos and get paid for it. I use digital, in the form of a Canon 10D digital SLR, with various lenses. Straight out of the camera, the prints up to 11" x 14" that I have done have been more aesthetically pleasing to the eye...significantly less grain at equivalent ISOs

    • eh, hum.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by djupedal ( 584558 )
      Film still has the ability to store information that digital formats will take years to catch up to

      Such as GPS or EXIF data, which, if it had been available back then, would allow to you place your ancestor within a meter of wherever the photo was taken. Yep, studying those old negatives for hours really has us beat, today.

      • Re:eh, hum.... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BWJones ( 18351 ) *
        Such as GPS or EXIF data, which, if it had been available back then, would allow to you place your ancestor within a meter of wherever the photo was taken. Yep, studying those old negatives for hours really has us beat, today.

        You certainly have a point, but your glib response betrays your ignorance. GPS or EXIF would allow me to place where, but not always when. Additionally, annotation of images is not always possible, especially when there is additional information in the image that might not be appar

        • Re:eh, hum.... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by appleLaserWriter ( 91994 )
          Additionally, annotation of images is not always possible, especially when there is additional information in the image that might not be apparent from first glance

          EXIF data, including a timestamp, is stored in the image file automatically by the camera. Both my Canon G1 and S30 do this automatically without harming either the image or using the space between frames.

          Examining the guy next to him revealed information on his name tag and rank with enhancement of his face to reveal his identity

          I think y
    • (Note: I'm just in a snarky mood - my sarcasm should be taken as playful, not mean.)

      While you're right about the storage medium problem to a degree, you've forgotten about... printers. You know, those magical devices that produce pieces of paper with a replica of what we see on screen? Also, I would expect that businesses will build over the years specically for regaining data from old, unused formats of media, etc, for those who don't migrate/backup their data to more modern mediums as time progresses.

      • Re:Not quite film yet.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @08:52PM (#7969020) Homepage Journal
        There's an old adage, "Anyone can build a bridge what won't fall down. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that -just barely- won't fall down."

        In other words, it's easy to build a grossly overdesigned bridge. A well designed bridge can have an adequate safety margin and use fewer materials. Because strength is not always an obvious thing, then engineer may well know the -best- place to put that extra strength. The simple bridge may be stronger, but lack the needed strength in some non-obvious place.

        Likewise photography.

        Film has always had molecular-scale resolution - kind of an innate property of film, itself. That aspect is over-engineered. Far more often photos come out poorly because of poor exposure or focus. The weak spot isn't the capability of the film, it's behind the camera. Or for that matter, the overage film that after exposure sits in the camera or on a shelf for another year before getting processed.

        I haven't seen a digital camera without at least automatic exposure (which can itself be fooled) and many/most have autofocus, as well. (which can also be fooled)

        Still, in the hands of a novice, I suspect a digital camera is more likely to take good pictures than a film camera. The film/CCD isn't the determining factor.

        That says nothing at all of what a professional can do in either form factor. (Other than that I'd say that a professional can do better - in either form factor.)

        • Still, in the hands of a novice, I suspect a digital camera is more likely to take good pictures than a film camera. The film/CCD isn't the determining factor.

          In the hands of a novice, a good automatic camera (say, a Canon Rebel in automatic mode) with good film of a decent speed (400 is nice general-purpose stuff for all but the brightest scenes) will always take better pictures than all but the most expensive digital cameras, which is to say, those costing upwards of two grand. Or at least, the way

        • Re:Not quite film yet.... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kaa ( 21510 )
          Film has always had molecular-scale resolution - kind of an innate property of film, itself.

          May I suggest you refrain from making authoritative pronouncements when you don't have a clue?

          Film does NOT have a molecular-scale resolution, and it's obvious to anybody who has ever looked at a negative (or a print or a slide) carefully.

          Black-and-white film has resolution limited by the size of the silver clumps, and these clumps (the size of which mostly depends on how sensitive film is) are several orders of
    • I can easily see the same things happening with digital information, too, though. The photos you restored were taken care of, unlike the many that weren't taken care of and have thus been lost over time. It's not much different with digital. Throw a hard drive, flash card, and cd-rs in a box and store them somewhere dry for 50 years. They may or may not work perfectly by then, but there'll be data recovery techniques that work well on them, just as there are photo recovery techniques that work today.

      There

  • It's too bad (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:11PM (#7968091)
    There are already too many kids that don't get the line "Shake it like a Polaroid picture" in Outkast's "Hey Ya."

  • digital disposables? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SHEENmaster ( 581283 ) <travis&utk,edu> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:11PM (#7968096) Homepage Journal
    C'mon Konak, Walgreens is sold out and I still need a hundred more for the bulet-time shot in my movie!

  • I'm not suprised (Score:4, Insightful)

    by teutonic_leech ( 596265 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:11PM (#7968105)
    This was to be expected - they have done a great job re-strategizing their business and producing film based cameras is probably not as profitable. Although I'll miss film eventually, when it's really gone - it has a certain look & feel that is very unique. There is also still a lot of resolution left in film that has never been tapped, based on the nano-sized film particles. I wonder if that is a pre-cursor to theatrical film...

    • Re:I'm not suprised (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kaan ( 88626 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:38PM (#7968383)
      ...when it's really gone - it has a certain look & feel that is very unique...

      This is just like those conversations about CD audio replacing vinyl, or solid-state amplifiers replacing tubes. Generally, it's about digital versus analog.

      Walk into any good record shop (not Tower Records...) and ask if they've got any vinyl; I guarantee that you'll see a lot of it. I think that the worse-case scenario for what will happen to traditional film vs. digital film will be similar to the vinyl vs. CD war. There will always be people who choose vinyl, tubes, and traditional film. They may not be the majority, but they will always be around.

      Newer isn't always better.

  • Global trend (Score:2, Informative)

    by sosume ( 680416 )
    I work with both analogue and the digital photo production and can definitely confirm that this is a string global trend. However, the only apparent reasons for people to switch to digital are price and comfort; most pictures people shoot with their jpeg cameras are quite ugly and pixelated..

  • Not much of a change actually. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kobal ( 597997 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:14PM (#7968141)
    The editor here reeks of technogeek bigotry. Kodak hasn't produced a really noteworthy film camera since the then omnipresent brownie, anyway.
    They still make film, though, and that's what they do best. I don't see Kodak abandoning film anytime soon. Discontinuing classic films like Tri-X, Technical Pan or Kodachrome would only earn them a worldwide boycott from professional photographers. I think they learned their lesson when they discontinued Kodachrome 25 a while back.

  • Flawed analogy (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It looks like consumers have spoken and film is finally going to go the way of the dinosaur."

    How can you make this statement based on the actions of a company who hasn't been a market leader in non-disposable film cameras since the 1940's? I haven't seen a Kodak film camera (barring disposable cameras) since the "Kodak disk".

    This is like saying the telephone is dead since AT&T will no longer make telephones.

  • Well Duh (Score:2, Interesting)

    by AttackShipsOnFire ( 549003 )
    I recently went on vacation, and my digital camera died right before I left. I picked up a couple of $9 27 exposure disposable cameras in the checkout line of the supermarket.

    I took the pictures, came back and had them developed at the 1 hour booth in a CVS. It cost me $22.50 or so to get my 50ish pictures back.

    Freaking expensive, plus half of the pictures didn't turn out, and had I had a digital camera I would have retaken them on the spot!
  • you can enlarge a 35mm print into a giant poster with no noticeable problems and no pixelation. as far as i know you can;t do that with digital yet, you actually have to have that high resolution. so, kodak is making a big mistake, because they will lose lots of customers who were using their film based products for things like posters etc.. just my two cents

  • Processing (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ucblockhead ( 63650 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:16PM (#7968161) Homepage Journal
    What is really tolling the death-knoll of film-based cameras for the general consumer is the entry of stores like Whalgreens, Costco and Walmart into the digital "development" market. When a digital camera required a computer and photo printer to produce photos you could hold, they didn't make financial sense for a lot of people. But now that you can "develop" a digital picture at the local drugstore for around twenty-five cents, digital cameras suddenly become economically competitive for the consumer taking snapshots.
  • It's only kodak, the film cameras industry is not dying.

    Canon, Pentax, Nikon, etc all of them are selling MUCH MORE film cameras than kodak ever did.

    Probably a good idea for Kodak because I think they only really sold low quality (aimed at the average Joe) film cameras and with digital cameras all over the place, this particular category is dying.

    In the high end photo market you still have film cameras and I bet they are here for a long time.

  • Kodak CAMERAS?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mrs. Grundy ( 680212 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:17PM (#7968169) Homepage
    It looks like consumers have spoken and film is finally going to go the way of the dinosaur."

    Consumers may have spoken, but what they said was that they prefer to buy their film cameras from Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta, Konica, Bronica, Hasseblad, Mamiya, Toyo, Linhoff, leica, Contax, Horseman, Sinar, Rollei, even Fuji....in fact anybody so long as they aren't called Kodak.

  • There are some fine art photographers that use film.

    For instance, there is nothing to compare to a platinum or paladium contact print from an 8x10 or 11x14 film sheet. I know, it's a nitch area...but this can also be a selling point for a photographer.

    For instance, purchasing a print that was made the old fashion way can make it worth more. Also, a platinum print will last forever as long as you take care of the paper it's printed on.

    I know that digital is here to stay, but I've yet to see a camera that can last as long as a film camera. For example, a digital camera bought just 2 years ago is almost unsupported and is very outclassed by newer and cheaper cameras. Yet, I could pick up a Leica made 50 years ago and still run film through it! I know several photographers that have cameras passed down to them from their parents/grandparents. Who's going to pass down their Canon G5 20 years from now?

    Also, with film, you can pick up an Ansel Adams negative made 80 years ago and make a print from it. How will archiving last that long for digital? CDROM? Isn't the lifespan of a CD only like 20 years at best? You'll have to keep updating your pictures to newer and newer media. They still haven't gotten around that yet.

    Just things to think about...
  • I guess it isn't practical to put a chip in a roll of film and therefore use the DMCA to get consumable product lock-in.
  • There are places where digital simply can not go. For instance, high radiation places, such as on military planes (think nuke-proof) or even parts of spacecraft.....film is a crucial medium for photography.

    I think Kodak sees the consumer going the way of digital, and that makes sense.
  • When they drop the disposables that will be news.

    "Except for disposables" is a pretty big except. They sell a lot of those things.

  • Not a very interesting thread IMHO; I'm sure our readers in upstate NY will agree that Kodak booms and busts more than Boeing.

    Better managed and more conservative companies like Fuji (a WalMart partner) will gladly take on their market share.

    Interestingly; digital film may play well for technologists like /.'ers but Photofinishing businesses are still doing quite well.

    On a side note if you can handle the smell take a tour of a photofinishing lab! They are a geeks dream! Very Cool! Chemistry, Mechanics an

  • Two comments: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Txiasaeia ( 581598 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:22PM (#7968223)
    1) This is *KODAK*. Kodak film cameras are pretty rare as it is (35mm at least, dunno about medium format); this announcement does't change very much. Now, if this announcement were from Nikon or Canon, we might have a bit of a problem (but see #2), but as it is, this is not a big deal. It's like Interplay announcing that they're getting out of the PC gaming business :)

    2) Even if big guys like Nikon, Canon and Minolta announced that they would no longer manufacture film cameras, there would still be a huge quantity of cameras left to sell, *AND* you can bet that film manufacturers and developers would still be in business for a loooong time.

  • This has got to be coming from someone who thinks cameras in celphones is the end-all be-all of photography.

    Although digital has arguably caught up to 35mm, I suggest you go talk to someone that shoots medium format or large format. Digital backs for those cameras cost about 15K USD, last I checked. Film is hardly dead.

  • Hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by radicalskeptic ( 644346 ) <x AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:25PM (#7968256)
    According to some, to get the quality of 35mm analog film you'll need at least 10 megapixels on your digital camera. [qwest.net]

    You can buy such a camera, but be prepared to spend over 1,000 USD. I'm not so sure film is going to be disappearing any time soon.

    • Granted if the cost is the same I'll go for better quality. However when the cost isn't the same I'll examine if quality is worth it. Todays $200 digital cameras are good enough. Not as good as a $200 35mm, but still good enough. They are likely better than the 110 camera I had as a kid (though 110 was a lot cheaper than $200) Now factor in the convience of digital: I can see the photo right away, and choose which ones to print. That makes the prints cheaper on a per picture taken basis, and likely

  • FOR NON-PHOTOGRAPHERS: KODAK DOES NOT = CAMERAS (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Kodak is a film copany, almost any camera they make is disposible. The ONLY professional cameras Kodak make at the momment are digital anyway, and even those are Nikon camera bodies, that have had a Kodak CCD/CMOS chip slaped into them.

    This is not really news unless Nikon, Pentax, Canon or Olympus decided that they were going to stop film camera production.

    One reason for this I can think of: A digital camera is useless with-out a computer. Try useing a digital camera with-out a way to re-charge the batter

  • Straight from Kodak (Score:5, Informative)

    by muonzoo ( 106581 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:26PM (#7968271)
    Might as well read the press release from the [kodak.com] official source [kodak.com].

    I don't think this has anything to do with the demise of film. It's about no longer producing products that aren't as profitable as they'd like. If they stopped making 35mm film, then we'd have something notable.

    There is something interesting in the press release; Kodak indicates that they will :
    [c]ontinue to manufacture APS films, consistent with consumer demand[.]

    This looks like an indirect reference to plans for phasing out the production of APS films, which have never caught on to the degree that the industry had hoped.

  • Cost ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by polyp2000 ( 444682 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:34PM (#7968345) Homepage Journal
    Im not hugely clued up on the whole camera thing. But i know for a fact that a 200 dollar SLR camera is going to give far superior pictures than a similarly priced digital camera. The only inconveinience is getting the film developed.

    Until high quality digital cameras come down in price i think it will be a while before film dies....

    and then there is the whole hollywood movies thing going on too .!

  • Big deal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bluesman ( 104513 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @07:55PM (#7968528) Homepage
    Even Paul Simon, when he wrote a whole damn song about Kodak film, admitted to using a Nikon camera.

    Obviously he loved the film, didn't like the camera.

    No big loss.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @08:21PM (#7968802)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Replacing film (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cant_get_a_good_nick ( 172131 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @08:30PM (#7968863)
    Though it is highly symbolic that the company that invented the Brownie will no longer produce cameras, i think the dinosaur comment is a bit premature, and overly dramatic.

    1) Kodak is stopping production of film based cameras, not film. They never were heavy into point and shoot 35mm. A lot of competition there. I don't believe they ever manufactured a 35mm SLR. They created and defined Advantix, and I think the most dramatic change will be here, and saying that they're stopping their Advantix camera production spells the end of film is, well, exaggerating. Advantix will go away, not the way of the donosaur, but more the way of the Kodak Disc - a format designed for ease of use, but with image quality and film availability issues. I gave away my Advantix because getting decent low light film is impossible. At one time, the best you could get was 400 speed. Significantly, this was a Fuji emulsion, not Kodak.
    All in all, this more spells the death-knell of Advantix, not film in general.

    2) Kodak has just released a lot of new film emulsions, in color print, color slide, and B/W variations. Their R&D will probably slow, but it will be a long time before they stop completely. Fuji, Konica, Agfa, and I think Ilford as well have also all released new emulsions in the last year.

    3) Many companies are releasing new film SLRs. Canon, part of the vanguard of Digital, just released an updated Rebel Ti (EOS 300), and even a model just under it, the Rebel K2 (not sure of foreign designation) and re-released the Rebel G to get the very low end of SLRs Kodak has released the F55 and F65, and F75 all very recently, while having a very big digital inventory. They're looking to supplement film for now.

    4) Though digital cameras have many advantages over film ones and have converts every day, film still has advantages over the current crop of digital cameras, and will continue to do so for some time. These extend from image capture, to processing, to image storage, to print longevity. Film can not be replaced completely until it no longer has advantages in any of these areas.

    5) Inertia. People have 35mm cameras, thousands invested in some. Theyr'e not just going away.

    As for me, I suspect I will turn digital at some time. I'll buy a Digital SLR to replace one of the 35MM film SLRs that I currently own, and try to sell or give away my old one. Film will slowly change from being the mainstream to being a hobbyist format. It will never become a dinosaur, because there will always be people that feel it gives them something artistically that digital doesn't. The dwindling customer base will affect economies of scale. There will be no new emulsions because you can't justify the R&D, then some unpopular ones will be culled. But there will always be B/W 35mm film, and ther will always people who want to print their own.

  • Consumers have spoken... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @08:32PM (#7968881) Homepage Journal
    Consumers have spoken, and Kodak digital cameras are going the way of the dinosaur. They use proprietary drivers instead of the standard USB Mass Storage protocol most other cameras are using. This means it's extremely difficult to use them under Linux or BSD, even with a current gphoto. And Mac users are too used to *REAL* plug and play to bother with installing drivers, particularly for devices that shouldn't need them.

    On the other hand, most UMass based cameras just work. Period. Without installing one damned driver anywhere, I can use it on my FreeBSD machine, my friends PowerBook, and my mom's Wind98SE system.

    Having to carry around the Kodak Install CD just so you can grab your photos anywhere other than your own computer, is just silly. It sucks when you're on vacation. It's just another thing you have to remember to pack. "Dear, don't forget the Kodak CD! Remember that Aunt Martha uses a Canon camera instead..."

  • Film, photo and life (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MacBorg ( 740087 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:25PM (#7969288)
    I am an advanced photo student who has not gone digital yet for the following reasons: 1. Cost - I've invested close to 2K in Nikon SLR hardware in the last four years and to duplicate such a setup in dSLR gear is EXTREMELY expensive (if I'm talking 35mm quality or better) 2. Quality - film is simply more deailed... i'll just use my negative scanner... 3. Archival: Good film negatives will last 5-10 decades... digital files are good only as long as you can read them. I would love to see a permenent 'negative'-like object for digital (platform independant & exceedingy durable. 4. B&W - to my knowledge, there is no dSLR that captures the 'metallic' aspect of good B&W negatives - and yes, I know that this is an effect of the silver emulsion... I just love it ...however, Kodak's PhD cameras were worthless anyway... just so long as they don't kill TMX-100 or Portra-200 ---

  • hogwash--- Kodak will keep making film (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SethJohnson ( 112166 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @02:27AM (#7971154) Homepage Journal


    This is absolutely false logic.


    "Kodak stops making cameras, so analog film is done."

    The profit for Kodak was Never off the cameras. It has always been off the film and processing. All the other manufacturers like Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc. make superior cameras and Kodak simply provides the media for them.

    For many years, I don't think I knew anyone with a Kodak camera. Then they launched the horrible Advantix format and there was a surge in 'dumbed-down-loading' cameras on the market. Parents bought them for my various girlfriends, so I suddenly saw a few Kodak-branded cameras. Now digital cameras are replacing the market demand for poor quality images and without the complication of loading 35-mm rolls.

    There is still a significant number of photographers who will continue to use 35-mm for the indefinite future. Kodak will continue to make $$ off the film and processing.

    Hell, Kodak is still making Super-8 film. You might have thunk that reasonably-priced video cameras would have killed that format by now. Nope.

  • Good. Should improve average quality. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by anothy ( 83176 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @05:08AM (#7971628) Homepage
    Kodak's film cameras suck, and always (more or less) have. they make very good film, paper, and associated supplies, but their actual cameras are plain awful. this is pretty commonly accepted by professionals in most areas (i can't say all; i hear they have some film-based forensic cameras that are good if you need that sort of thing). their digital cameras, while not the best available, are pretty good. this is just kodak realizing that they can make more money by selling something they do well than something they do poorly.

    what would be real news is if Kodak were to stop producing film.

  • Load of cobblers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Arimus ( 198136 ) on Wednesday January 14, 2004 @08:33AM (#7972436)
    Yep, the consumer has spoken and killed off the consumer compact film camera market but there will be a market for the high end SLR camera's until some of the issues with digital camera's are resolved - including the following:-

    1. Shutter lag,
    2. Resolution - digital cameras with the same image size as a 35mm are expensive, a medium format almost unaffordable and large format? forget it...
    3. Perception in the pro world - film is still considered the best for colour and clarity etc,
    4. Battery life, a modern digital SLR will kill a set of batteries many many times faster than a film SLR.

    And no doubt a few other reasons....

    (I've recently just gone back to using film as I wasn't happy with my digital but my concession to technology is doing my own developing, scanning the output and printing off just what i need burning the rest onto DVD's for achiving.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Whoever dies with the most toys wins.

Close