Kodak on digital and film future

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

  1. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    A good thing, too.
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Michael Scarpitti

    Dana Myers Guest

    So clearly you're discussing some kind of abstract concept and
    I'm discussing the reality today and into the near-future. What
    kind of technology are you using in your photographic profession?
    Autochromes? Technicolor? Or current production film?

    Happy New Year, Tom!

    Dana Myers, Dec 31, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Digital media is not. That's the problem. Ask anyone in the industry.
    It's the least

    Nonsense Michael. No digital media is permanant. CD-Rs are the best they
    come up with so far, and they last maybe a few decades. The hardware
    needed to read and write digital media changes so fast the media you
    write on today is obsolete tomorrow (I know, I have examples sitting
    next to me on my desk as I speak -- obsolete disks and obsolete
    recorders.) Theoretically, the only way digital media can be made
    "permanant" is to incessantly back up and copy, and recopy, and recopy,
    redundantly forever.

    Put an image on film and it's there once and for all *forever* as long
    as it's properly stored. And copies are easily made at the time of
    exposure for most images. James Reilly at the Image Permanance Institute
    says the longevity of such properly stored film is hundreds, if not
    thousands, of years.

    Film is a sure thing. Digital media isn't.
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
  4. And I think that's the gist of the complaint being made here!
    Well said! I had noticed the same phenomenon in ham radio. People spend
    too much time saying "Morse is superior" when all they really mean is,
    "Morse is my hobby."
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
  5. Can you explain and give examples? I would think that if there is a market
    for a better product, manufacturers will cater for that market. It may be a
    narrow niche market, but if people want to buy them and can pay enough,
    products will be made.
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
  6. How about punched plastic tape? (Bulky, but permanent.) Or even pressed
    CDs? I didn't say CD-Rs were permanent. I said we _know how_ to make
    permanent digital media. Because anything that can record ones and zeroes
    can be a digital medium, there is an enormous range of possibilities.
    Photochemistry is not involved and does not constrain you.
    But the copies are perfect.
    That's not "forever." Besides, perfect copying of film is impossible.
    Every copying operation loses something.
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
  7. Michael Scarpitti

    Dana Myers Guest

    "good enough" means suitable for a stated purpose. Nothing mediocre
    about it.

    Dana Myers, Dec 31, 2003
  8. Why?

    Just because "art" has to resemble cave-man artifacts in order to be... what
    Michael A. Covington, Dec 31, 2003
  9. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Hardly. Lots of photographers use simplified, retro, or alternative
    processes. Pinhole, Collodian, maybe carbon and yes still dye transfer.
    You appear to think only in terms of mediocrity and mass market
    generalization. O.K., I'll give a little: mass market snapshooters who
    stick their fingers oin front of the lens will always be satisfied with
    mediocre photographic crap -- nothing need be of better quality than to
    achieve a 4x6 or 8x10 cheesy Frontier digital output. Your litle digicam
    will do that.

    A non-abstract concept: Real photographers think a bit more deeply about
    their art than that...
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
  10. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Like I say, Kodak has recently discontinued several outstanding
    products. They don't cater to "niche markets" as far as I can tell. It's
    all mass market or not at all.
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
  11. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    If you can afford to store your data anmd images on commercially pressed
    CDs, I think I should ask you for a loan :)
    But the industry only commits itslef to mass market and short term
    profitability. That's how manufactureing works, unfortunately. That's
    why we have CD-Rs as the major choice for storage instead of some more
    "permanant" digital storage form, if one exists.
    Not always. Data can in fact be lost during copying. In fact, a certain
    amount of data is lost, if I remember.
    read my lips: The fact that you cannot make exact duplicates of an
    extant photograph is a GOOD THING. Secondly, I routinely made exact
    duplicates at the time of exposure, and I think most photographers also
    do this.
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
  12. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Mediocrity is inherent, as is conformity.
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
  13. Michael Scarpitti

    Tom Phillips Guest

    Because what gives a work of art it's value is it's uniqueness and
    originality. If you had umpteen exact duplicates of the Mona Lisa
    instead of just one by the original artist it would have little value.
    Digital copies have no value; one copy is the same as the next and there
    are unlimited copies possible. Forgeries cannot be detected.

    Ansel Adams made the comment that no two of his prints from the same
    (one and only original) negative) were alike.

    The fact that you have one original negative makes that negative
    infinitely valuable. Adams Moonrise, Hernandez, for example. The fact
    that it's difficult to make a prints that are exactly alike makes them
    valuable. Digital may be art, but it's a valueless art in my estimation.
    Tom Phillips, Dec 31, 2003
  14. To be of any worth, uniqueness. Otherwise ya may as well sell printed
    paper towels.
    Gregory W Blank, Dec 31, 2003
  15. Ya, got that for sure.
    Gregory W Blank, Dec 31, 2003
  16. Did't see that article on 60 minutes about M**santo and the poor
    community in SC where people had not been informed
    of the PCB's in the local stream. Seems like they had been eating
    fish from that stream since God knows when and Mon*anto had
    never told them the PCBs were their since 1941. Highest incidence
    of cancers in the Country.

    Ask the good people of Bopal India how good industry is about catching
    toxic wastes.
    Gregory W Blank, Dec 31, 2003
  17. Michael Scarpitti

    Dana Myers Guest

    Tom Phillips wrote:

    That's also why we have cars today that last 150k+ miles with little more
    than regular oil changes... oh wait... that's not mediocre.

    You're carping about one extreme, Tom, which is not representative
    of the industry in general. Kodak discontinued a bunch of products,
    I'm surprised you didn't mention Royal Gold 25, and they were interesting
    niche products. But people simply weren't buying them in sufficient
    quantity to justify making them.
    It depends on the kind of copy you make. At the bit-level, you absolutely
    can make a bit-for-bit identical reproduction with absolutely no deterioration.
    Don't be confused by audio CDs which are intentionally designed to tolerate
    errors; data CDs either read perfectly or yield an error. You either have
    a perfect copy or know that an error occurred. Typically, deteriorating
    media will start showing recoverable errors - re-reading the data enough
    times will get the *exact* bits, and you have a perfect copy - you also
    know that the copy is deteriorating and to no longer trust it.

    It's really not that complicated.

    I know you like the idea of a single physical artifact being a "photograph",
    but that's your own opinion. I rather like the idea of being able to
    indefinitely preserve an image without deterioration regardless of the
    medium on which it is stored. Afterall, it's the image that I care about.

    Dana Myers, Dec 31, 2003

  18. Yes I am, unless I spend 5, 8, 14K it ain't doing near what I can do with a
    6x6 negative or even a transparency. And I have 3k tied up in film based MF cameras.
    I have been doing this for 22 years now so I probably have a little more money invested
    in this "hobby" than you sir.

    I typically shoot interior photography, just last week I was making 4 minute exposures
    without any light other than available......does your digi camera do that ? Using additional
    lights became problematic. When you give the work for publication, how does the
    client reference proper coloration for the output?, Its fine if they supply you the profile
    but guaranteed most would shrug thier shoulders if you ask them for it.

    Why should I invest in equipment that does not match what my
    4x5, 8x10 or 6x6 cameras can do.

    Perspective adjustments? Not unless you spend alot of bucks
    for a hybrid system to mount that digi cam. My 4x5 has them already
    its paid for it did not cost me 14K plus the " digital camera".
    Really not a rec darkroom discussion is it.
    Wine makes you puke if you drink too much.
    I really don't need long term digital storage as I have all my stuff on film
    any digital stuff I need for I scan.
    I'd like to see the bar graph comparison of those that own digi cams and are
    doing work for publication verses those of us that use film and are
    working for publications.

    I think digital should be used for what its worth, for me
    only as a promotional media, to send out. But its really not
    a rec darkroom discussion.
    Gregory W Blank, Dec 31, 2003
  19. Michael Scarpitti

    Dana Myers Guest

    Actually, forgeries can be detected. There's a whole range of
    "Digital Rights Management" technology to deal with exactly
    this class of issue.

    But, you're right, a digitally captured image is just an
    image and not a collectible. Why is that a problem?
    Did he *prefer* that? Or was it just an artifact of the looser
    process control inherent in manual darkroom work? Now you're sounding
    like Cain or other wineries that get a Brett's infection and
    start claiming it's a desired flavor component, or like J. Lo
    turning her rear-end into a trademark ass-et instead of a liability.
    Well, that *used* to be what made a negative infinitely valuable.
    But, frankly, you're really missing the point. If you capture an
    image digitally, and preserve it indefinitely, and keep the digital
    form of the image under lock and key, it's no different than a
    negative. You have the option of making and selling prints
    only when you desire to, and can tweak the print to your heart's
    content each time.

    Dana Myers, Dec 31, 2003
  20. Michael Scarpitti

    Dana Myers Guest

    You needn't become condescending, Tom...
    But you're intent on it anyway. I suppose we could launch into another
    endless discussion of "what is art?" but I'm not really interested. Art
    is in the eye of the creator and the eye of beholder, and there's an amazing
    range of interest and preference in the world.

    Perhaps you *could* explain why a print produced from a cheesey pinhole
    paper negative is good and a "cheesey" print produced on a Frontier isn't.

    I notice that you failed to answer a very direct question,
    instead choosing to speak in broad generalities and
    launching into a condescending attack.

    Just answer this: you're a professional photographer, right?
    What film(s) do you use?

    Dana Myers, Dec 31, 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.