Kodak-- No further longterm investment in film

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Gordon Moat, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. It's a fact that unless you have access to your own photo lab, you
    will get a much better 8 x 10 print using a digital camera and an
    inkjet printer.

    Some people have their own black and white labs, hardly anyone has
    their own color lab.
     
    Leica like that, Oct 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gordon Moat

    Eric Gisin Guest

    |
    | > I rather thought that the low end shooters (esp. if they also own a
    | > computer) preferred inexpensive digital cams.
    |
    | It's a fact that unless you have access to your own photo lab, you
    | will get a much better 8 x 10 print using a digital camera and an
    | inkjet printer.

    Read before replying. Low end shooters never made print bigger than that.
     
    Eric Gisin, Oct 3, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gordon Moat

    Jeremy Guest

    x-no-archive: yes


    Not necessarily.

    1: Inkjet prints may fade quickly.

    2: The user must have some knowledge of photo editing techniques. It is
    doubtful that the image will look great, as it comes out of the camera.

    Film-based cameras have a wider range of focal lengths for their lenses.
    Also, the lenses on fine photo equipment will outperform those for digital
    cameras.
     
    Jeremy, Oct 3, 2003
  4. Gordon Moat

    ThomasH Guest

    No more. Everybody has now a degree of awareness about this issue.
    First Epson introduced archival class inks, than Canon brought a
    compromise solution (20-25 years durability) to the masses at a
    very low price. Now everybody must prove just how durable its ink is!

    Good for us!

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 3, 2003
  5. You mean be able to lie about it, or otherwise find someone ready
    to cook results inorder to sell product,....nothing new under the sun.

    Only years down the road will anyone know for sure.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 3, 2003
  6. Gordon Moat

    ThomasH Guest

    Of course, but we have already a lot of experience collected during
    15-20 years of observing about just how well the estimates calculated
    by Wilhelm and others hold in the practice. All other assumptions about
    the (in)correctness of such data are rumors and gossip.

    Thomas
     
    ThomasH, Oct 3, 2003
  7. Gordon Moat

    Loren Coe Guest

    i became aware of this recently, now i wonder if these estimates are
    conservative? same for cd-r media, why in hell, years after their
    introduction, are we now talking about 'data-life'?

    makes you wonder what/if Kodak published in 1940 about print life of
    b&w, then color, then slides? i haven't dug out my slides for 14yrs,
    and many are 40+ years old and i will be _pissed_ if they have gone
    to hell. the last time i looked, there were some letters in the file
     
    Loren Coe, Oct 4, 2003

  8. I know. That's why I said before that LOW END shooters would continue to use film!
     
    Leica like that, Oct 4, 2003
  9. Gordon Moat

    Ray Fischer Guest

    No photo lab can do as good a job as an inkjet printer?

    Crap.
     
    Ray Fischer, Oct 4, 2003
  10. Low end Like John Shaw & Art Wolf right?,....interesting how Epsons recent promo for thier 7600&
    9600 machines only have film shooters and the cameras, films etc as examples.

    Whats more these guys are using 35mm for the promo, its going to be along
    time before affordable digital matches my 4x5.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 4, 2003
  11. I have worked in many Photo labs where many low end photographers sent
    negatives in for 11x14, 12x18, 20 x30 and 24x36 hundreds daily and the
    closer to Christmas even thousands.

    I agree Film is on the decline however I feel many will continue to film as
    it is still cheaper than digital. Not everyone is willing to pay $50 for an
    ink cartridge Yes the printers are coming down in price however the ink is
    not.

    Many digital photographers will continue to send their images to labs to
    make a photographic print rather than printing on a inkjet printer as they
    can get a better quality print much cheaper than printing it them selves.
    They can spend their time creating and improving their digital image then
    send it in for printing. They can have the best of both worlds.

    Gary
     
    Gary J Bevans, Oct 4, 2003
  12. Gordon Moat

    Rafe B. Guest

    Your information is badly dated. Current Epson inkjet media
    is rated at 80 years by Wilhelm. The earlier series (eg. Epson
    2100) was rated at 200 years.

    Even dye inks now -- from Canon or Epson -- are rated for
    25 years or so, on appropriate media. HP has a paper/ink
    combo that gives 75 years or so (HP 7550.)
    Actually, I have far less "editing" to do on my digicam images than
    I generally do on scanned 35 mm and 645 negatives. And I'm not
    talking about spotting or retouching, since the ICE feature on my
    film scanner does that very nicely.

    Most of the editing I do on my digicam images is "tonal range
    restoration" -- since CCDs behave more like slide film than the
    print film that I prefer to use in my film cameras. It's a technique
    I learned years ago with my first film scanner -- back in the days
    when film scanners had very poor dynamic range.


    Yes, sub-frame sensors on digicams are still an issue. Though I
    don't see how your statement holds at all for digital SLRs, since
    they use the same lenses as SLR film camera bodies.

    With a smaller imaging surface, lenses for digicams can be made
    smaller and cheaper (with equivalent max. apertures) -- that is true.
    Eg., I am very impressed by the quality of the optics on my Canon G2.



    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 4, 2003
  13. Gordon Moat

    Jeremy Guest

    x-no-archive: yes
    I do not consider an inkjet print that lasts only 25 years to have any
    value. Some of those inkjet prints begin to show signs of fading within
    weeks, not years.

    I have not seen anything about any 200-year ink, and I would take that with
    a grain of salt. In any event, the average user is not going to have the
    sophisticated setup that you do, so my assessment is still valid.

    The TYPICAL inkjet print may look good at first, but it deteriorates
    faster--much faster--than do prints made on traditional photo paper, using
    photo dyes.

    My only point, which I tried to make with the original poster, was that it
    was not necessarily a "fact" that a digital print done by an inkjet was
    always better than a wet print made traditionally.

    I am reacting to what seems to be a sense of arrogance by digital users, who
    say all too often that they have THE superior method of capturing, and
    printing, images. Depending upon one's criteria, that may or may not be the
    case.

    If one is creating images to last a long time, currently-popular inkjet
    technology still has a way to go.
     
    Jeremy, Oct 4, 2003
  14. Gordon Moat

    Rafe B. Guest


    No value? To you, maybe. But how can you possibly
    extrapolate that view to others? I've had many hundreds
    of paying customers who clearly feel there's some value
    (read: $$) to my prints.

    Fading may occur within weeks, days or hours -- if the
    print is abused, or not properly protected, or was printed
    with incompatible inks and papers. There are any number
    of ways to make short-lived prints.

    OTOH, if one takes even the simplest precautionary
    measures, prints should last for years. At a conference
    I attended last April, I mentioned to Henry Wilhelm that
    my five year old Epson prints were still looking good.
    His response was: "That is in fact the majority experience."

    You seem to be unaware of the trend toward pigment inks
    in inkjet printers.

    Check Henry Wilhelm's site. For the Epson 2100 and 7500 series,
    the rating was 200 years. There were other issues with these inks,
    so Epson's newest pigment inks ("Ultrachromes") are down to an
    80 year rating from Wilhelm.

    Again, that is not a universal experience. Framed Epson prints
    on the walls of my home are still looking as good as the day they
    were printed -- five years later.

    This may be tempting fate but: I've been selling framed Epson
    prints with a "fading" warranty for the last several years. A
    statement of the warranty is attached to the back of each frame.
    I've had zero warrantly claims in that time. The text of the
    warranty is on my website if you're curious.


    Did I say "always"?

    What I do know for a fact is that professional photographers
    are abandoning their wet darkrooms in droves.

    The "replacement" technology is a matter of many variables.
    Some are having their prints made on Lightjet or Lambda or
    Fuji Frontier (Pictrography) or maybe Kodak 8500 (dye sub.)
    Others are going for pro model Epsons (7xxx, 9xxx, 10xxx, 2100,
    2200, etc.). At the low end (consumer/prosumer) the choices
    seem to be Epson, Canon and HP.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
     
    Rafe B., Oct 4, 2003
  15. Gordon Moat

    Crownfield Guest

    and there is the flaw in the analysis.
    digital cameras are more expensive than the similar film camera.

    digital developing and processing is easier and costs almost nothing.

    printing from digital here is cheaper and better than than from film.
    both prints come from the same machine.
    the difference is that the digital image
    can be corrected almost perfectly before it goes to the machine.

    printing on your inkjet printer is more expensive,
    but faster, easier, and better if you profiled your printer.
     
    Crownfield, Oct 4, 2003
  16. Gordon Moat

    Bill Hilton Guest

    I have not seen anything about any 200-year ink, and I would take that with
    The 200 year rating was for the Epson 2000p. The 2100 is the European model of
    the 2200, which has estimated print life of 50-90 years or so (depending on the
    paper), per Wilhelm.

    These 25 year inkjets (mainly the Canon S900/S9000 class and Epson 1270/1280
    class with certain papers) have a longer projected print life than Kodak's
    Ektacolor papers (14-22 years) to the exact same tests done by Henry Wilhelm.

    For years the color print process favored by fine art photographers was
    Cibachrome or Ilfochrome (same thing) and while these prints had extremely long
    print life estimates when kept in dark storage, to Wilhelm's tests the yellow
    patch faded in an estimated 29 years, not much longer than the inkjet prints
    you are so quick to dismiss.

    Ciba has been around long enough to get actual (instead of projected) print
    life and Wilhelm's non-accelerated tests indicate an even shorter print life
    before yellow fading, not quite 20 years. You can download his data from his
    web site (from his book, now available as a free .pdf download) and check it
    for yourself.

    Right now digital prints on the Epson pigment ink printers or on the better
    high end printers like the LightJet with Fuji Crystal Archive paper have longer
    estimated print life than almost any wet color process except dye transfer,
    which has been discontinued.

    The early inkjets were intended mainly for business and you're right, all the
    prints faded relatively quickly. For example, Epson's first Stylus Photo
    models, thru the EX and 1200, had print life estimates of 6 months to 2 years,
    depending on the paper used.

    This changed radically for the better with the Epson 1270 and 1280 dye ink
    models (to 23-27 years with certain papers like Matte and ColorLife) and even
    more radically with the pigment ink printers like the 2000p and 2200.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 4, 2003
  17. Gordon Moat

    Crownfield Guest

    have you considered how long prints from kadak and agfa are rated?
     
    Crownfield, Oct 4, 2003
  18. Kodak Endura up to 200 years.
     
    Gregory W. Blank, Oct 5, 2003
  19. Gordon Moat

    Nick C Guest

    Read the samll print. The span of time is depenant upon limiting factors.
    That may well be the case ... for you. But that has not been the case for me
    or some of my acquaintances. I have found that I spend less computer time
    scanning selected slides, doing what must be done, and finisfing off with a
    print than I do with Raw digicam pictures. Needless to say, I do favor my
    film cameras over my digicams though I don't plan on surrendering my
    digicams.

    Nick
     
    Nick C, Oct 5, 2003
  20. Gordon Moat

    Bill Hilton Guest

    have you considered how long prints from kadak and agfa are rated?
    This would be equivalent to about 18 years under Wilhelm's test assumptions ...
    see my response in the digital NG for details on the differences between how
    Wilhelm tests vs how Kodak tests.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Oct 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.