Kodak plans a new FILM camera

[cmacd123]

Since Kodak owns at lest one firm that made private label SLR cameras in the past, they may be able to honestly say that it is made by Kodak Japan. Learning how film works is considered a needed step in learning how to be a good Photographer, even if the student will only be using digitalstuff after they leave school. Film schools also require student assignments done on film, which is probaly what helps keep Plus-x reversal and Tri-X reversal in production, even in Super 8.

There was a senior Kodak engineer who posted regularly to the cinematography forum, until his unfortunate demise from Cancer. He is missed and mentioned regularly in that forum. Any Kodakians who are hear may whant to pass the idea in the old sugestion box, that someone from sales engineering might want to have this board added to their duties.

 

[PHOTOTONE]

Kodak at some point acquired CHINON in Japan, but then phased them out in favor of having their digi-cams made in China. I do not think Chinon is an active manufacturing entity now. The Vivitar SLR is made by COSINA in Japan, and this is almost for sure where the Kodak labeled camera will be sourced.

 

[Vonder]

Anyone hear any more of this news? Been a few months and nothing much has moved...

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

There is nothing more telling than to have a long-standing major name in photography take the step of manufacturing a new film camera. The other marques do not appear interested in traditional film-based photography, and they perhaps take that road at their peril: cease 35mm and we'll migrate to large format!

At a time when photography is being rudely usurped by computers and rampant "me-too-ism", Kodak's decision can perhaps be interpreted as a ring of confidence that film will be around for quite some time yet, even in B&W. As others have pointed out in this thread, it is very, very true that a solid grounding in film is still the best foundation upon which traditional photography skills are built.

 

[brofkand]

As others have pointed out in this thread, it is very, very true that a solid grounding in film is still the best foundation upon which traditional photography skills are built.

That is so true. I didn't understand photography truly until I started shooting film. When you use a Polaroid packfilm camera, and each shot is costing you about $1, you really take you time and get it right.

Now, when I use my D40, I shoot many less pictures than I used to. When I see a photographer hold a camera in place and roll off 5 exposures, I cringe. Why? They may be essentially free, but they're all the same.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Now, when I use my D40, I shoot many less pictures than I used to. When I see a photographer hold a camera in place and roll off 5 exposures, I cringe. Why? They may be essentially free, but they're all the same.

I don't know what the situation is in e.g. other countries, but one thing that irks me more than anything else is how these new-age "photographers" do all their image composition on a tiny LCD screen on the back of the camera. In my day studying Visual Arts, we learned not to see through the camera, but with it — via the viewfinder. I agree that these digi-obsessed photographers rattle off a great many images and still can't get it right. With film (as you point out, it's cost), every composition, exposure and ultimately the image must be considered.

Does anybody know how long digital images last for once they are out of the camera i.e. onto a CD or stored on electronic drives? One theory has it about 7 years? I've got Kodachrome 64 and 200 slides in perfect condition shot in the mid-1970s. Just wondering if digital can match that...

 

[brofkand]

In theory digital files will last longer than physical slides, negatives, prints, etc. as long as they are periodically converted to a new medium (floppy to CD, CD to DVD, etc) and a new format (PaperPort .MAX to Tiff or JPEG, for instance).

But, as you said: it isn't too hard to find a projector to show off your now 40-year old slides. I'm willing to bet it will be pretty difficult to open a RAW file taken today on a computer 40 years from now.

 

[dbonamo]

I don't know what the situation is in e.g. other countries, but one thing that irks me more than anything else is how these new-age "photographers" do all their image composition on a tiny LCD screen on the back of the camera. In my day studying Visual Arts, we learned not to see through the camera, but with it — via the viewfinder. I agree that these digi-obsessed photographers rattle off a great many images and still can't get it right. With film (as you point out, it's cost), every composition, exposure and ultimately the image must be considered.

Does anybody know how long digital images last for once they are out of the camera i.e. onto a CD or stored on electronic drives? One theory has it about 7 years? I've got Kodachrome 64 and 200 slides in perfect condition shot in the mid-1970s. Just wondering if digital can match that...

I have images from the late 90's. The images will last as long as the media they are stored on, DVD or CD or what ever.
Question is, will future technology exist to view the images? Will future technology abandon image formats of today for the ones of the future?

With film, I can view an image with something that requires no technology, The Human Eye.

It is very doubtful that the digital images will survive a viewable format as long as film has, I say 173 years is a long time. As some of you already know the oldest negative known, at least to me, was made in 1835.

http://www.edinphoto.org.uk/1_P/1_photographers_talbot_smm_latticed_window.htm

Wonder what version of photoshop we will be on in 2181?

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

In theory digital files will last longer than physical slides, negatives, prints, etc. as long as they are periodically converted to a new medium (floppy to CD, CD to DVD, etc) and a new format (PaperPort .MAX to Tiff or JPEG, for instance).

But, as you said: it isn't too hard to find a projector to show off your now 40-year old slides. I'm willing to bet it will be pretty difficult to open a RAW file taken today on a computer 40 years from now.

Most educational. :munch:
"Periodically converted to a new medium...format". But who among the current generation of "photographers" will think like that? :rolleyes:

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

Wonder what version of photoshop we will be on in 2181?

<*/guffaws\*>

 

[nsouto]

Wonder what version of photoshop we will be on in 2181?

I know one thing: it will *still* cost a fortune...

 

[Vonder]

I don't understand Kodak. Few do. I mean, there's no mention of this on their website. In fact, you can't even get to the info on the new Tmax films there. I'm lucky to have that bookmarked.

The average Joe, coming to their website, won't be able to find much related to film or film cameras at all.

 

[Frank Szabo]

Long live Kodak!!!!

You wouldn't say that as loudly if you were one of the retirees Kodak recently threw under the bus.

 

[fschifano]

Several folks have pointed out why there is a market for this sort of product in the photography departments of schools. But it is sad that so many people are surprised at this development. Apparently, they have been putting too much stock in the inane comments of the digitrolls over at that "photo" site.

It goes without saying that there will be solid demand for 35mm SLRs ten to fifteen years down the road. By then the closets will be mostly cleaned out, and all the "I bought it at an estate sale and don't know anything about" cameras will be sold off. Repairs to 70's and 80's cameras will become rare as replacement parts have finally dried up.

Digital isn't killing 35mm. As much as we all hate "that auction site", it created a market for used equipment that never existed before. Film camera sales are quite brisk there, with a lot of stuff commanding impressive prices.

That's a very astute observation, and one that I had not discounted. Up until perhaps 10 or so years ago, camera swap meets did a brisk business and you could find pretty much find anything you wanted if you visited regularly. Now that's gone too, completely swamped by online auctions. There are still a few swap meets around, but they are mere shadows of what once was.

 

[Photo Engineer]

You wouldn't say that as loudly if you were one of the retirees Kodak recently threw under the bus.

I don't feel run over. So they had to cut benefits to meet expenses. It isn't as if they did it with no warning. I feel bad, but I have to accept the fact that they warned us ahead of time, I'm better off than some from other companies, and lastly that Kodak is still trying to make film products with high quality for all of us.

As a side note, I can easily find Kodak film products on their web site. In that information there is more data than most other companies regarding the specifications of a given film.

PE

 

[cmo]

I've always felt there were Kodak "lurkers" here at APUG.

Probably every manufacturer has discovered the power of working in forums.

Unfortunately some of them are overzealous and try to put a spoke in competitors' wheels à la "did you hear the rumour that xy is closing its factories...". Others suffer from a persecution mania and believe that evil competitors are at the bottom of all critical notes in forums.

I recommend: read statements about the state of manufacturers and the quality of their products with all that in mind. Quite often, these methods are best described as a four letter word.:rolleyes: (Hint: it is not the word "good")

Some of these "gung-ho" marketing goofballs did not understand yet that we want new, better, reliable products and not unfair competition. I consider these methods repulsive, and I am not the only one.

BTW, the Kodak announcement is not a blowoff, but the Vivitar camera that is supposed to be the basis lets me expect pretty much the same features as a Nikon FM oder Pentax MX at a bargain price compared to the price tags in the olden days - and those were good, classic cameras, enough on board to take great photos, and no nonsense.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Kodak people lurk here, but as in all corporations, they do not have permission to speak out. Many retired Kodak employees also contribute here. Many more do not care to contribute. The same is true of other photo sites such as Photo Net. Some of us meet for lunch every so often and APUG posts sometimes come up as topics of discussion.

PE

 

[cmo]

Wonder what version of photoshop we will be on in 2181?

Probably it will Photoshop 911.0.

Again, Adobe will promise everything will be more user-friendly than ever.

Again, Adobe will explain that every tiny new feature that nobody ever missed is now #1 premise for all life on planet earth.

Again, we will find USM in the sub-sub-sub-menu, it will have 500 different settings.

Again, the manual will be so refreshing that everyone looks forward to read 5,000 pages (and that's just the "Readme" file).

Again, noboby is none the wiser after reading it and needs a four-semester training at Adobe High School in Bangalore (that's were it is made, and now the user interface and manual are in Hindi).

Again, it will be even faster to install than the previous version - just 4 Terabytes.

Again, I will skip that version and wait for something better.

 

[aparat]

Again, noboby is none the wiser after reading it and needs a four-semester training at Adobe High School in Bangalore (that's were it is made, and now the user interface and manual are in Hindi).

Not very funny. Besides, Hindi is a minority language in that region.

 

[cmo]

This is good news. It would be nice if they built a boutique item like fuji's folder. I think it would be pretty cool to see a kodak interpretation of Rollie's 35s, a modern Medalist or didn't they make a military issue 70mm RF in the 50's. Sorry I'll stop dreaming and continue to buy their film, paper and chems.

A Medalist for 120 film with a lightmeter - yeah! It's probably one of the ugliest cameras ever built, but a useable one, if you get 620 film from one of the very few companies that still produce it (and there is even one guy that converts that old crump to 120 film.)

You want to see the incarnation of a Ford Edsel with a rangefinder and a very bright finder?

http://www.sturm.to/blog2/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/medalist_02_big.jpg

 

[cmo]

Not very funny. Besides, Hindi is a minority language in that region.

Yes, you are right, but this was not meant as a derogative term, I love India. But I have my doubts whether Adobe's product development has grown away from the customers.

 

[srs5694]

Wonder what version of photoshop we will be on in 2181?

By 2181, only historians of computers will even know what Adobe Photoshop was. I'm not being glib; 2181 is 173 years from now. Few companies last that long, and in the computer industry, common software becomes quaint and forgotten in far less time than that. Remember WordStar? It was developed in 1978, and it was the 800-pound gorilla of the word processing market in its day, but today (a mere 30 years later) you can only run it in an emulator or on an antique computer.

To make matters worse, this analysis assumes that computers will exist in a recognizable form in 173 years. Even leaving aside doomsday or technological singularity scenarios, in 173 years computers will likely have changed so much that it might be meaningless to talk about individual programs like Photoshop.

 

[dbonamo]

By 2181, only historians of computers will even know what Adobe Photoshop was. I'm not being glib; 2181 is 173 years from now. Few companies last that long, and in the computer industry, common software becomes quaint and forgotten in far less time than that. Remember WordStar? It was developed in 1978, and it was the 800-pound gorilla of the word processing market in its day, but today (a mere 30 years later) you can only run it in an emulator or on an antique computer.

To make matters worse, this analysis assumes that computers will exist in a recognizable form in 173 years. Even leaving aside doomsday or technological singularity scenarios, in 173 years computers will likely have changed so much that it might be meaningless to talk about individual programs like Photoshop.

Yet that negative that was produced in 1835 will still be printable or at least viewable, assuming it is cared for.

 

[HerrBremerhaven]

Just a side note to all this, Vivitar is looking for a buyer. Apparently they are not doing that well as a company. While I don't know how that will affect previous agreements, it raises some doubt about future Vivitar sourced products.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

 

[ajuk]

Hmm Why a 35mm SLR? There are plenty on the usedmarket so how many would buy new?
I really don't see a market here. Why not a 6X6 fixedlens ala Fuji's or a Retina 4....?

I think a lot of students will go buy new because, they just want something new or because they don't know any better, I am surprised their aren't more modern electronic SLR's still being sold in shops to such people.