Kodak on digital and film future

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Michael Scarpitti, Dec 28, 2003.

  1. The two are not mutually exclusive. All established
    profitable firms make decent products: one can only fool
    customers for so long.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Dec 31, 2003
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. "better."

    You are assuming that potential customers don't want "better" products.
    That is a strange assumption. Any evidence for it?
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Right.

    We need to distinguish some things. For the past 2 decades, computers have
    been going into landfills because of rapid, genuine *improvements* leading
    people to buy new ones. This will eventually level off, or take a form that
    does not produce as much waste, simply because when it does, it will become
    cheaper for consumers.

    The same is true of digital cameras. *Improvements* are what lead people to
    get new ones frequently. I expect them to level off at maybe 10 or 15
    megapixels and then we'll be in a "Nikon F era" -- the same cameras will
    remain in extensive use for a long time.

    If someone is insinuating that manufacturers are deliberately making bad
    products so they can sell us new ones sooner, I don't buy it.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
    #63
  4. Well said!


    VY 73
    N4TMI


    --
    Clear skies,

    Michael Covington -- www.covingtoninnovations.com
    Author, Astrophotography for the Amateur
    and (new) How to Use a Computerized Telescope
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
    #64
  5. Digital technology is advancing at perhaps 100 times the speed at which film
    technology advanced in its first decades.

    Besides, we know how to make permanent digital media already. We just need
    to settle on one. Because anything that can record ones and zeroes can be a
    digital medium, the field is wide open.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
    #65
  6. And even if we don't, we can do what scientific data archives do -- make
    *perfect* copies digitally every few years. Photographs can't be copied
    perfectly over and over like this.
     
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
    #66
  7. "Michael A. Covington"
    Yes, but do you really want your digicam to start spewing
    80-column punched cards?

    6 MPix = 54 Mbyte
    = 675,000 cards
    = 4,560 inches
    = a 380 foot stack of cards
    = several thousand pounds
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Dec 31, 2003
    #67
  8. "Michael A. Covington"
    But that depends on human activity - a very
    weak link in the chain.

    The repeated handling of the media (it is, after
    all, the _media_ that needs to be replaced) will
    result in damage and the subsequent loss of all
    those *perfect* (and virtual) 1's and 0's.

    The stuff that survives for hundreds and thousands
    of years is the stuff that hasn't been touched by
    people: photos in the attic; clay tablets buried in
    the sand; ochre painted on a cave wall...

    Even if a CD survives for a few millennia (and some
    probably will), what is going to be around to read it?

    If it is human readable now it will be human readable
    as long as there are humans.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Dec 31, 2003
    #68
  9. We used punch cards back when I took P-Chem (shortly after the earth first
    cooled)... Used em with the Schrodinger equation to calculate energy levels
    of electron shells... The fun part was to slip one card out of someones
    stack and randomly reinsert it somewhere else...

    Yes, but do you really want your digicam to start spewing
     
    Dennis O'Connor, Dec 31, 2003
    #69
  10. Michael Scarpitti

    Dana Myers Guest

    This is *exactly* my point, I suppose my sarcasm was a little
    too subtle to detect :)

    Dana
     
    Dana Myers, Dec 31, 2003
    #70
  11. Michael Scarpitti

    Dana Myers Guest


    My point is that people making digital prints at home aren't
    really different than people with darkrooms at home. They
    both produce waste, except the inkjet waste is far less toxic.

    Of course I do. How is this relevant? You know what it takes to
    manufacture film, paper, chemicals and cameras? I call it even,
    and in both cases, it's usually done in a well-controlled factory
    that doesn't pour used fixer down the drain. The issue are the
    people that aren't properly disposing of the waste products, like
    botched prints, test strips, silver-laden fixer, so on.
    I don't really want used fixer in my drinking water...
    Maybe y'all in North Carolia have different standards :)

    [...]
    Heh. My MF kit is a very cherry Yashica MAT-124G from the late
    1980s, one of the last ones built, and an older Minolta Autocord.

    Dana
     
    Dana Myers, Dec 31, 2003
    #71
  12. Sorry. With all the Political Correctness floating around (and
    my sisters visiting from Mill Valley, California) I seem to
    have become a knee-jerk Republican.
     
    Nicholas O. Lindan, Dec 31, 2003
    #72
  13. Michael Scarpitti

    jjs Guest

    Ah now, be the Complete Entropist! None of this impressionistic "it smell
    yickie so it's got to be toxic." You might be surprised by how very little
    of the B&W darkroom is truly toxic. But would you be surprised to find that
    the manufacture of digital components (chips, plastic, monitors, chemicals,
    burnwaste) is rife with deathly toxin? And how many of the toxic products
    makers are in parts of the world with less concern for pollution. You buy,
    you pollute the earth. No way around it.

    Where I live the trash people will remove some things right out of your
    trash and put 'em onto your lawn if you try to toss 'em. For example, to get
    rid of a CRT (monitor) you have to arrange with the hazardous waste disposal
    department or pay extra to have the garbagemen do it for you. 'course, the
    farmers get away with worse, but they are somehow politically entiteld.
     
    jjs, Dec 31, 2003
    #73
  14. Yes but all the gulliable shmoes will. :) Actually I think its
    a case of supplanting a technology that has proven itself
    more than adequate "Film" with one that realistically,.... just don't
    cut the cheese yet "digital capture".
     
    Gregory W Blank, Dec 31, 2003
    #74
  15. Tonal scale in favor of resolution? Tmax/Delta verses HP5?
    Or Contact printing papers verses Enlarging papers. Its all about how
    or who perceives the better product as being what.
     
    Gregory W Blank, Dec 31, 2003
    #75
  16. Michael Scarpitti

    Dana Myers Guest

    Spent fixer is the bad stuff in a B&W darkroom. Selenium and gold toners
    are nasty, too.
    Nope, not surprised at all. Of course, these manufacturers are
    generally quite good about capturing the toxic wastes of manufacturing.
    They're not quite as incented to simply pour it down the drain,
    as is the case with home darkroom users.
    That's not a given, not even in the slightest.

    Dana
     
    Dana Myers, Dec 31, 2003
    #76
  17. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    But they're not ones and zeros. Fundamentally they're silver halide
    based, regardless of how sophisticated and industrially engineered
    modern films have become. But that's not the point. If you claim there
    is no pragmatic difference -- let alone a fundamental physical
    difference, you're really just fooling yourself. Your error is in
    insisting modern chromogenic methods of dye incorporation (or kodachrome
    dye injection) are the only viable color methods. They're not. As early
    as the 1860s pigmented carbon prints were being produced in color
    (exceptionally stable), and early foreunners of color separation
    photography (separation negatives and dye transfer printing) were being
    experiemnted with and produced. These are in fact *better* and more
    permanant methods of producing color images photochemically. They only
    reason they're not widely used anymore is the shortsighted business
    practices of companies like Kodak, who are only interested in making
    money. That's why chromogenic processes were invented, to be more
    conveniently mass produced. But they are inferior. That's the nature of
    profit-oriented manufacturing and the same "profit before archival
    quality" decisions will be (and in fact are being) made by the digital industry.

    So, if you want to insist on irrelevant distinctions between photography
    in color and photography in black and white, you can. Color does not
    require a modern chromogenic process. And the fact remains, take away
    all the technology digital is 100% dependent on, and you can still make
    photographs -- color, black and white, makes no difference. You simply
    can't say that about digital. The difference between the mediums and
    processes is like night and day. I won't even get into the limited
    device color space digital is infamous for which can never match the
    richness and depth of color produced by additive or subtractive
    photographic color dyes. The physics of photochemical photography --
    color or black and white -- are not dependent on the semi conductor
    industry and Thomas Edison's legacy of electrical power grids. Either
    can be produced in the absense of sophisticated technology.

    You don't need film as manufactured by Kodak in 2003 to make photographs
    -- either color or black and white. If that transparent fallacy were
    true, photography in 19th century never happened and you'd better
    rewrite history.
     
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
    #77
  18. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Yeah but they're only decent enough to profitably mass market to a
    targeted general population that is typically satisfied with "good enough."

    It's like when color T.V.s came out in a big way in the 60's. They were
    a big hit even though the color was horrible. But it was color and so
    "good enough." And thus Kodak markets RA-4 and kills off dye transfer. A
    print whose dyes last maybe 100 years is "good enough" for your average
    snapshooter. Similarly, the movie industry abandoned the more
    pernamantly archival technicolor process to make "cheaper-faster-but not
    better" chromogenic-based color films many of which simply faded
    immediately because the same cheapo movie industry didn't want the
    expense of either producing technicolor or preserving cheaper-faster
    fade-prone chromogenic films.

    Decent products has nothing to do with it. It's all about profitability
    vs. good enough.
     
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
    #78
  19. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    The discontinuance of Kodachrome 25. Discontinuance of Dye Transfer.
    Discontinuance of Panatomic X. Discontinuance of Kodak interneg film
    (digital internegs are not as sharp and much more expensive...) See my
    other post to Nicholas :)
     
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
    #79
  20. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Not bad products. But mediocrity generally rules, i.e., "good enough"
    for profitability.
     
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
    #80
    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.