For those of you who still love shooting with film... - GoFuckYourself.com

LadyMischief · 01-17-2004, 05:07 PM

I just read an awesome article in the January 2004 Popular Photography magazine. It is called Film: It's Alive!!! by John Owens. I will quote some here so you all can feel comforted!

Film Cameras are a Steal - Got $300? You can buy a lot more film SLR than digital anything. For instance, a 35mm Canon EOS Rebel Ti with a 28-90 mm f/4-5.6 lens costs less than a Canon digital Powershot A80 with 4MP and an f/2.8-4.9 lens (38-114mm equivalent). Both are good, but face it, the Powershot is really juts a top end snapshooter. The Rebel Ti, however, can grow with your ambitions and skills, since it has many more custom controls and can handle virtually any lens in the almost-limitless Canon EF optical family. Soon you may want to buy a digital SLR body to use with your existing lenses, but in the meantime a digital SLR is far more expensive than it's 35mm counterpart. Even at a bargain, Canon's EOS Digital Rebel is three times the price of the Rebel Ti.

Film is fast - Low light? For high image quality you can't beat film. ISO 800 color-print film can give you quite acceptable resolution, sharpness, and even grain. And quile ISO 1600 film tends to be grainy, it's not all bad. But with most digital cameras, digital noise can degrade your images to the point of "why bother"? at ISO settings above 400. Even the $11,995 16.6 MP Kodak DCS Pro Back 645H has settings only up to ISO 400. At that point, our lab tests found "moderate" noise. Yet a $300 35mm SLR handles ISO 1600 film without flinching.

Film can be enlarged.... a lot - Big prints? Think film. Load ISO 100 print film into any decent SLR, and chances are you'll get negatives that be blown up to 20x24 prints and are sharp and detailed. For a digital camera to match that, you'd have to spend 5 times as much.

Film is power-stingy - When was the last time you changed the batteries in your 35mm SLR? I can't remember either. That's especialy true when your film camera packs lithium vells. Digitals, on the other hand, need regular recharging or constant reinforcements. Not a problem if juice is readily available, but if you're out of batteries in a remote spot, you're out of photography. Not only is that less likely with a film camera, but some don't need batteries at all.

Film doesn't crash - As someone who's watched his harddrive write it's own obituary with a couple hundred of my family photos, believe me when I say there's a sense of, well, permanence, in envelopes full of negatives or a stack of sleeves loaded with slides.

Film doesn't require infrastructure - With digital, after your first few hundred shots, you must get some sort of a system. Typically that indluces album software for your computer, CD backups, online storage, etc etc ec. It's great, but far more time-consuming than envelopes and sleeves.

Film is the Original Photoshop - Infrred photography, in-camera multiple exposures, reflection-free polarized shots, they're all part of the film camera gene pool. Granted, some digital cameras can shoot IR, and some digitals can do in-camera multiple exposures, these are exceptions. Increasingly, special effects are achieved not through photographic hardware at the moment of exposure, but through software that adds time.

Film is RAW - A digital camera's JPEG and TIFF files are in effect, selective representations of the incoming data. If everything were saved on the image (as it is in the RAW format), the file would be huge and difficult (or at least slow) to process. With film, however, all of the "data" is on the negative or slide, and can be accessed with proper printing techniques or on a pro-caliber film scanner.

Film Doesn't Preclude Digital - Once you scan a slide, negative, or print into a computer, it's a digital image. From there on, the capture medium doesn't matter. And all of the enhancing/manipulating and printing gee-whiz that the digital darkroom allows is yours.

Anyways, figured I'd share that because that article is what I've believed all along

Digital isn't bad, but film isn't dead.

Dirty F · 01-17-2004, 05:11 PM

Pretty lame...prolly written by some old dude whos doing his best to find reasons to still keep using film cameras.

This story can be turned around completely. I could mention 10 reasons why to use digital.

LadyMischief · 01-17-2004, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Battuss
Pretty lame...prolly written by some old dude whos doing his best to find reasons to still keep using film cameras.

This story can be turned around completely. I could mention 10 reasons why to use digital.

I think the article is more directed to the people who say film is dead. Not saying that digital is bad, but that there's good points to film too. I am not some lame old dude and I prefer film as well.

uptheyingyang · 01-17-2004, 05:43 PM

been shooting film since about 1960.

had a full darkroom, with processing for c41 and e6.

sold gallery type 16x20 fine art prints for years.

and sold all my LF, MF, and 35mm film gear some years ago.

true, film is not "dead". but high end digital (even consumer digital now) is faster, cheaper, and higher quality than chemical based photography. it just plain looks better IMO.

now with certain archival pigments fine art printers can produce something that your great great grandchildren can actually look at, and it will look the same 100+ years from now.

a digital file does not degrade through reproduction, unlike photographing a photograph.

within 10-15 years the only guys using film based photography will be fine art geeks who are trying to preserve the "art" of darkroom work, the problem is their prints won't sell as well as archival prints made with pigment inks.

not trying to win an argument here, just my 2 cents.

BV · 01-17-2004, 06:00 PM

I started with film way back. I agree that it is much more forgiving with light, etc etc.. and produces top notch results.

However, if I had to pay for film processing plus scan every image that I have ever shot since going digital, I would be a broke, tired sob!

LadyMischief · 01-17-2004, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BV
I started with film way back. I agree that it is much more forgiving with light, etc etc.. and produces top notch results.

However, if I had to pay for film processing plus scan every image that I have ever shot since going digital, I would be a broke, tired sob!

Lol yeah for large-scale production digital is much cheaper. But for myself, I shoot mainstream as well and I really just don't enjoy digital as much as film. Film has that grit and grain and hands-on feel about it that I will never get with digital either

quantum-x · 01-17-2004, 06:18 PM

I went from digital back to film

AmeliaG · 01-17-2004, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LadyMischief

Lol yeah for large-scale production digital is much cheaper. But for myself, I shoot mainstream as well and I really just don't enjoy digital as much as film. Film has that grit and grain and hands-on feel about it that I will never get with digital either

Totally there with you

cold_ice · 01-17-2004, 07:25 PM

Shit I'm still confused. Which is better for around the house shit? Like b-day parties and shit like that.

KRL · 01-17-2004, 08:20 PM

I was at Wolf photo today shopping for camera's and was talking to the manager about the film market. And he said its so completely dead they're pulling the film cameras except for just a couple models off the shelves by the fall.

Film is dead. Let's face reality. Once the majority stop buying a product like now, companies won't invest in manufacturing them or developing new models.

Why is it so hard for some of you to accept reality?

The guy I was talking to teaches photography at a local university and he was showing me his portfolio all shot in digital and it looked better than film output.

Dax · 01-17-2004, 08:22 PM

Another point of view:

In a major announcement today Kodak has stated that it will stop selling its APS and reloadable 35 mm film cameras in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. It will continue to make disposable 'single use' film cameras for all markets and will continue to sell reloadable 35 mm film cameras into 'emerging markets' such as China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America. This effectively means the end of all APS cameras from Kodak, worldwide. Kodak is shifting more of its efforts towards the ever more popular digital camera products.

Press Release:

Kodak to Accelerate 35mm Consumer Film Effort in Emerging Markets
ROCHESTER, Jan. 13 -- Eastman Kodak Company today announced that it will accelerate its 35mm consumer film efforts in growing emerging markets, one of a series of moves that represents the continued implementation of the digitally oriented growth strategy announced by the company in September.

As part of that strategy, Kodak will manage its worldwide traditional photographic business through selective investments for growth that serve customers' needs.

"Kodak is, and will remain, committed to manufacturing and marketing the world's highest quality film," said Bernard Masson, President, Digital & Film Imaging Systems, and a Senior Vice President, Eastman Kodak Company. "Consistent with our strategy, we will focus our film investments on opportunities that provide faster and attractive returns, while reducing investments where we see unsatisfactory returns."

In keeping with that approach, the company will:

Increase its commitment to 35mm reloadable camera sales and manufacturing in emerging markets, such as China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America;
Introduce worldwide new high performance 35mm and APS films next month;
Continue to manufacture APS films, consistent with consumer demand;
And, end distribution of reloadable APS cameras worldwide, and reloadable 35 mm cameras in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe by the end of 2004.
"We are reinforcing and expanding our commitment to 35mm film and cameras in emerging markets because of the significant demand from China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America," Masson said. "The 35 mm film industry continues to grow at double-digit rates in those markets."

As a result, Kodak will introduce this year six new cameras designed specifically for emerging markets. Additionally, Kodak has been driving significant distribution expansion of Kodak 35mm cameras in emerging markets, where the company expects to sell cameras at more than 85,000 locations in 2004, up 55% from 2003. Kodak will be supplying this increased demand out of their existing operations in China and India.

Kodak is committed to delivering enhanced, feature-rich film products that not only meet the needs of the marketplace, but that also provide consumers with a tangible benefit, whether digital images from film, clearer pictures or more flexibility in photo-taking environments.

"We are exiting the APS camera business because of declining consumer demand, which has led to unsatisfactory returns," Masson said. "Selling APS film and photofinishing remains a very attractive business for retailers. In addition, consumers who use APS film are highly loyal to the format. We remain committed to delivering enhanced consumer benefits in our APS films, and we will continue to provide service and support for retailers and consumers."

Kodak will work with its retailers throughout 2004 to provide assistance in sales and merchandising as they sell existing inventories of APS cameras to consumers.

Underscoring its dedication to the film category, Kodak has introduced eight new films and photofinishing services in the last two years, including KODAK 35 MM and APS High Definition Film, KODAK PLUSDigital one-time-use-camera and KODAK PERFECT TOUCH processing. Kodak will continue to provide innovative film products that meet new channel needs and drive new consumer applications.

railz · 01-17-2004, 08:28 PM

Then again Kodak just announced they are not going to be making any more film camera (except for disposables) and concentrating on digital.

Digital prices are dropping, quality is improving and printing the actual images is getting cheaper by the day.

Film will never truely die, but it's not the market force it once was.

KRL · 01-17-2004, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by railz
Film will never truely die, but it's not the market force it once was.

OK, seen any new 33 vinyl records? Any 8 track tapes?

Digipimp · 01-17-2004, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
I was at Wolf photo today shopping for camera's and was talking to the manager about the film market. And he said its so completely dead they're pulling the film cameras except for just a couple models off the shelves by the fall.

Film is dead. Let's face reality. Once the majority stop buying a product like now, companies won't invest in manufacturing them or developing new models.

Why is it so hard for some of you to accept reality?

The guy I was talking to teaches photography at a local university and he was showing me his portfolio all shot in digital and it looked better than film output.

Correct sir. I like how the article says hey you can get a film camera cheaper, but doesn't say you have to buy and develop film for the rest of your fucking life, like that shit is free. Oh I saved $100 on my camera, now I only have to buy new film rolls every 30 pictures, then pay to develop it, then pay to have digital files made from it, then hey a few days after I shot something on my camera that cost me $100 less I finally have pics on my computer that I can use.

myjah · 01-17-2004, 08:41 PM

dont they have film cameras out now that will display the image you just photographed and give you the option to keep it or take a picture over it

BV · 01-17-2004, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by myjah
dont they have film cameras out now that will display the image you just photographed and give you the option to keep it or take a picture over it

i never heard of that one, doesn't sound possible, one film is exposed....

myjah · 01-19-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by BV

i never heard of that one, doesn't sound possible, one film is exposed....

You're right. Apparently you can preview the picture you just took and if you don't like it you can select 0 copies to be made. You cannot take over the picture or erase it, but you do get to see it so you know if you need to take another one. http://www.digital-cameras-info.com/..._advantix.html

LadyMischief · 01-19-2004, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Digipimp

Correct sir. I like how the article says hey you can get a film camera cheaper, but doesn't say you have to buy and develop film for the rest of your fucking life, like that shit is free. Oh I saved $100 on my camera, now I only have to buy new film rolls every 30 pictures, then pay to develop it, then pay to have digital files made from it, then hey a few days after I shot something on my camera that cost me $100 less I finally have pics on my computer that I can use.

Yeah, but I have proof of copyright that's a lot more solid than anything you can get with a digital image unless you pay out the ass for it. Not only that, but film has an artistry about it that digital eliminates, for me at least. It's much harder to take a truly wonderful photo with film, where you only have 36 tries to get it right than to take endless images with digital. I don't know about anyone else but this makes me take more care with my compositions, etc. My results with film are a million times better I guess simply because I KNOW I only have so many shots to get it right.

Not only that, but film has a softness that I still have not been able to see digital achieve. A woman's body, for example, is a beautiful thing of soft lines and evoking thoughts of softness and warmth. The extreme sharpness of digital just takes away from that some in my opinion. Granted, it's just an opinion, but I doubt that film will ever completely die. There are just too many people that feel like I do about it, and honestly, the cost is WORTH the results.

And the gratification when you take that perfect shot, and didn't have to photoshop it or delete 100 pictures to get that result.. THAT is priceless.

TheEnforcer · 01-19-2004, 10:05 AM

To me it's simple.. if you like using film use it and if you like using digital then use it. Whatever floats your boat. You can get outstanding pictures both ways.

ltl · 01-19-2004, 11:03 AM

I use both film and digital as I like both for different reasons. A while back I took the same glamour pics shot on digital and film and put both up side by side retouched and finished for the web and ran a poll on my users :-

Results:

Nobody could tell the difference (close to 50/50 - 50% thought the digital pic was film and the film was digital while the other 50% got it right).

Most (around 80%) did not express a preference to one over the other. Of the remaining 20% some said they liked the digital picture better while others said they liked the film picture better. There wasn't a significant leaning one way or the other.

Around 300 people voted (I have more members then that but those were the ones who were interested in the experiment).

As regards traditional publishing; until I bought a DSLR a few months ago, I was using a Nikon Coolpix 990 which is quite old and only 3 megapixel. I've had pictures accepted from it as cover shots for glossy mags though. Overall about the same amount of 3 megapixel digital pics made it into mags last year as my film pics (around 20 or 30 in the last year as I don't try and actively sell to magazines).

So the above things for me make an absolutely convincing case from a business perspective.

Now from an artistic perspective it's a different matter. If I wanted to shoot a large fine art print for gallery display I'd probably use medium format film as that would be my preference for THAT particular purpose. For the web though I am happy with mostly digital and a few film shots for fun.

Copyright needn't be expensive with digital. Here's what you do. Make a CD of the pics and post it to yourself recorded delivery. Keep all the paperwork and make sure the package cannot be opened without it being obvious. Store the package unopened after you get it back.

Alternatively (and better) register with the copyright office in Washington if you are in the US and send them copies. That's the preferred legal process.

What it boils down to:

If you take snapshots with film - don't take any care about composition, lighting or anything else - you can easily turn out crap like many people do with digital cameras too. Just more expensively

(which is probably why there is less film crap around).

Similarly if you take no care with digital and don't take time to learn how to get the best results from it you will produce crap in even vaster quantities then you would with film as the cost (which is non-existant) won't put you off.

Crap sometimes sells - the idea is often more important then quality in this business.

So I think - use film or digital as you personally prefer. But the reality is you can get good or bad results with both - it's just a question of how good or bad a photographer you are NOT what kind of equipment you are using. For business reasons in this sector digital probably wins - but that doesn't matter if you prefer to use film anyway.

01-17-2004, 05:07 PM	#1
LadyMischief Orgasms N Such! Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Oakville, Ontario Posts: 18,135	For those of you who still love shooting with film... I just read an awesome article in the January 2004 Popular Photography magazine. It is called Film: It's Alive!!! by John Owens. I will quote some here so you all can feel comforted! Film Cameras are a Steal - Got $300? You can buy a lot more film SLR than digital anything. For instance, a 35mm Canon EOS Rebel Ti with a 28-90 mm f/4-5.6 lens costs less than a Canon digital Powershot A80 with 4MP and an f/2.8-4.9 lens (38-114mm equivalent). Both are good, but face it, the Powershot is really juts a top end snapshooter. The Rebel Ti, however, can grow with your ambitions and skills, since it has many more custom controls and can handle virtually any lens in the almost-limitless Canon EF optical family. Soon you may want to buy a digital SLR body to use with your existing lenses, but in the meantime a digital SLR is far more expensive than it's 35mm counterpart. Even at a bargain, Canon's EOS Digital Rebel is three times the price of the Rebel Ti. Film is fast - Low light? For high image quality you can't beat film. ISO 800 color-print film can give you quite acceptable resolution, sharpness, and even grain. And quile ISO 1600 film tends to be grainy, it's not all bad. But with most digital cameras, digital noise can degrade your images to the point of "why bother"? at ISO settings above 400. Even the $11,995 16.6 MP Kodak DCS Pro Back 645H has settings only up to ISO 400. At that point, our lab tests found "moderate" noise. Yet a $300 35mm SLR handles ISO 1600 film without flinching. Film can be enlarged.... a lot - Big prints? Think film. Load ISO 100 print film into any decent SLR, and chances are you'll get negatives that be blown up to 20x24 prints and are sharp and detailed. For a digital camera to match that, you'd have to spend 5 times as much. Film is power-stingy - When was the last time you changed the batteries in your 35mm SLR? I can't remember either. That's especialy true when your film camera packs lithium vells. Digitals, on the other hand, need regular recharging or constant reinforcements. Not a problem if juice is readily available, but if you're out of batteries in a remote spot, you're out of photography. Not only is that less likely with a film camera, but some don't need batteries at all. Film doesn't crash - As someone who's watched his harddrive write it's own obituary with a couple hundred of my family photos, believe me when I say there's a sense of, well, permanence, in envelopes full of negatives or a stack of sleeves loaded with slides. Film doesn't require infrastructure - With digital, after your first few hundred shots, you must get some sort of a system. Typically that indluces album software for your computer, CD backups, online storage, etc etc ec. It's great, but far more time-consuming than envelopes and sleeves. Film is the Original Photoshop - Infrred photography, in-camera multiple exposures, reflection-free polarized shots, they're all part of the film camera gene pool. Granted, some digital cameras can shoot IR, and some digitals can do in-camera multiple exposures, these are exceptions. Increasingly, special effects are achieved not through photographic hardware at the moment of exposure, but through software that adds time. Film is RAW - A digital camera's JPEG and TIFF files are in effect, selective representations of the incoming data. If everything were saved on the image (as it is in the RAW format), the file would be huge and difficult (or at least slow) to process. With film, however, all of the "data" is on the negative or slide, and can be accessed with proper printing techniques or on a pro-caliber film scanner. Film Doesn't Preclude Digital - Once you scan a slide, negative, or print into a computer, it's a digital image. From there on, the capture medium doesn't matter. And all of the enhancing/manipulating and printing gee-whiz that the digital darkroom allows is yours. Anyways, figured I'd share that because that article is what I've believed all along Digital isn't bad, but film isn't dead. __________________ ICQ 3522039 Content Manager - orgasm.com [email protected]

01-17-2004, 05:43 PM	#4
uptheyingyang Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: chicago Posts: 376	been shooting film since about 1960. had a full darkroom, with processing for c41 and e6. sold gallery type 16x20 fine art prints for years. and sold all my LF, MF, and 35mm film gear some years ago. true, film is not "dead". but high end digital (even consumer digital now) is faster, cheaper, and higher quality than chemical based photography. it just plain looks better IMO. now with certain archival pigments fine art printers can produce something that your great great grandchildren can actually look at, and it will look the same 100+ years from now. a digital file does not degrade through reproduction, unlike photographing a photograph. within 10-15 years the only guys using film based photography will be fine art geeks who are trying to preserve the "art" of darkroom work, the problem is their prints won't sell as well as archival prints made with pigment inks. not trying to win an argument here, just my 2 cents. __________________ promote our original content 30 niche site package with ccbill: www.gashflash.com/affiliates/

01-17-2004, 08:20 PM	#10
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	I was at Wolf photo today shopping for camera's and was talking to the manager about the film market. And he said its so completely dead they're pulling the film cameras except for just a couple models off the shelves by the fall. Film is dead. Let's face reality. Once the majority stop buying a product like now, companies won't invest in manufacturing them or developing new models. Why is it so hard for some of you to accept reality? The guy I was talking to teaches photography at a local university and he was showing me his portfolio all shot in digital and it looked better than film output. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

01-17-2004, 08:28 PM	#12
railz Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,531	Then again Kodak just announced they are not going to be making any more film camera (except for disposables) and concentrating on digital. Digital prices are dropping, quality is improving and printing the actual images is getting cheaper by the day. Film will never truely die, but it's not the market force it once was. __________________ This Space for Rent

01-17-2004, 08:41 PM	#15
myjah Back in the harbor Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 11,482	dont they have film cameras out now that will display the image you just photographed and give you the option to keep it or take a picture over it __________________ VP of Marketing AVN Media Network Skype: AVNJill [email protected]

01-17-2004, 05:11 PM	#2
Dirty F Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 59,204	Pretty lame...prolly written by some old dude whos doing his best to find reasons to still keep using film cameras. This story can be turned around completely. I could mention 10 reasons why to use digital.

01-17-2004, 06:00 PM	#5
BV wtf Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Bikini State, FL USA Posts: 10,914	I started with film way back. I agree that it is much more forgiving with light, etc etc.. and produces top notch results. However, if I had to pay for film processing plus scan every image that I have ever shot since going digital, I would be a broke, tired sob!

01-17-2004, 06:18 PM	#7
quantum-x Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: ICQ: 251425 Fr/Au/Ca Posts: 6,863	I went from digital back to film

01-17-2004, 07:25 PM	#9
cold_ice Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: cali Posts: 3,027	Shit I'm still confused. Which is better for around the house shit? Like b-day parties and shit like that.

01-17-2004, 08:22 PM	#11
Dax Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,161	Another point of view: In a major announcement today Kodak has stated that it will stop selling its APS and reloadable 35 mm film cameras in the United States, Canada and Western Europe. It will continue to make disposable 'single use' film cameras for all markets and will continue to sell reloadable 35 mm film cameras into 'emerging markets' such as China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America. This effectively means the end of all APS cameras from Kodak, worldwide. Kodak is shifting more of its efforts towards the ever more popular digital camera products. Press Release: Kodak to Accelerate 35mm Consumer Film Effort in Emerging Markets ROCHESTER, Jan. 13 -- Eastman Kodak Company today announced that it will accelerate its 35mm consumer film efforts in growing emerging markets, one of a series of moves that represents the continued implementation of the digitally oriented growth strategy announced by the company in September. As part of that strategy, Kodak will manage its worldwide traditional photographic business through selective investments for growth that serve customers' needs. "Kodak is, and will remain, committed to manufacturing and marketing the world's highest quality film," said Bernard Masson, President, Digital & Film Imaging Systems, and a Senior Vice President, Eastman Kodak Company. "Consistent with our strategy, we will focus our film investments on opportunities that provide faster and attractive returns, while reducing investments where we see unsatisfactory returns." In keeping with that approach, the company will: Increase its commitment to 35mm reloadable camera sales and manufacturing in emerging markets, such as China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America; Introduce worldwide new high performance 35mm and APS films next month; Continue to manufacture APS films, consistent with consumer demand; And, end distribution of reloadable APS cameras worldwide, and reloadable 35 mm cameras in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe by the end of 2004. "We are reinforcing and expanding our commitment to 35mm film and cameras in emerging markets because of the significant demand from China, India, Eastern Europe and Latin America," Masson said. "The 35 mm film industry continues to grow at double-digit rates in those markets." As a result, Kodak will introduce this year six new cameras designed specifically for emerging markets. Additionally, Kodak has been driving significant distribution expansion of Kodak 35mm cameras in emerging markets, where the company expects to sell cameras at more than 85,000 locations in 2004, up 55% from 2003. Kodak will be supplying this increased demand out of their existing operations in China and India. Kodak is committed to delivering enhanced, feature-rich film products that not only meet the needs of the marketplace, but that also provide consumers with a tangible benefit, whether digital images from film, clearer pictures or more flexibility in photo-taking environments. "We are exiting the APS camera business because of declining consumer demand, which has led to unsatisfactory returns," Masson said. "Selling APS film and photofinishing remains a very attractive business for retailers. In addition, consumers who use APS film are highly loyal to the format. We remain committed to delivering enhanced consumer benefits in our APS films, and we will continue to provide service and support for retailers and consumers." Kodak will work with its retailers throughout 2004 to provide assistance in sales and merchandising as they sell existing inventories of APS cameras to consumers. Underscoring its dedication to the film category, Kodak has introduced eight new films and photofinishing services in the last two years, including KODAK 35 MM and APS High Definition Film, KODAK PLUSDigital one-time-use-camera and KODAK PERFECT TOUCH processing. Kodak will continue to provide innovative film products that meet new channel needs and drive new consumer applications.

01-19-2004, 10:05 AM	#19
TheEnforcer Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,855	To me it's simple.. if you like using film use it and if you like using digital then use it. Whatever floats your boat. You can get outstanding pictures both ways. __________________ Hit me up below for all your advertising needs!

01-19-2004, 11:03 AM	#20
ltl Registered User Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 34	I use both film and digital as I like both for different reasons. A while back I took the same glamour pics shot on digital and film and put both up side by side retouched and finished for the web and ran a poll on my users :- Results: Nobody could tell the difference (close to 50/50 - 50% thought the digital pic was film and the film was digital while the other 50% got it right). Most (around 80%) did not express a preference to one over the other. Of the remaining 20% some said they liked the digital picture better while others said they liked the film picture better. There wasn't a significant leaning one way or the other. Around 300 people voted (I have more members then that but those were the ones who were interested in the experiment). As regards traditional publishing; until I bought a DSLR a few months ago, I was using a Nikon Coolpix 990 which is quite old and only 3 megapixel. I've had pictures accepted from it as cover shots for glossy mags though. Overall about the same amount of 3 megapixel digital pics made it into mags last year as my film pics (around 20 or 30 in the last year as I don't try and actively sell to magazines). So the above things for me make an absolutely convincing case from a business perspective. Now from an artistic perspective it's a different matter. If I wanted to shoot a large fine art print for gallery display I'd probably use medium format film as that would be my preference for THAT particular purpose. For the web though I am happy with mostly digital and a few film shots for fun. Copyright needn't be expensive with digital. Here's what you do. Make a CD of the pics and post it to yourself recorded delivery. Keep all the paperwork and make sure the package cannot be opened without it being obvious. Store the package unopened after you get it back. Alternatively (and better) register with the copyright office in Washington if you are in the US and send them copies. That's the preferred legal process. What it boils down to: If you take snapshots with film - don't take any care about composition, lighting or anything else - you can easily turn out crap like many people do with digital cameras too. Just more expensively (which is probably why there is less film crap around). Similarly if you take no care with digital and don't take time to learn how to get the best results from it you will produce crap in even vaster quantities then you would with film as the cost (which is non-existant) won't put you off. Crap sometimes sells - the idea is often more important then quality in this business. So I think - use film or digital as you personally prefer. But the reality is you can get good or bad results with both - it's just a question of how good or bad a photographer you are NOT what kind of equipment you are using. For business reasons in this sector digital probably wins - but that doesn't matter if you prefer to use film anyway.