Kodak - 127 years later - General

[hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzQ1gx71EI[/hd] [QUOTE]Film still plays a part in what Kodak does at its headquarters in Rochester, New York—just on a much smaller scale than the decades before the digital revolution. After declaring bankruptcy in 2012, Kodak had to face many changes, not just decreased film production. Much of its factory space is now used by other companies manufacturing and packaging products completely unrelated to photography. But Kodak still has its hands in many areas of the photographic world, from motion picture film, to high-end inkjet printing. That doesn't make it any less melancholic seeing a giant of photographic innovation struggling to survive.[/QUOTE]

At least they tore down a lot of the abandoned buildings and leased the remaining ones out. If you leave that stuff around rotting you get Detroit Syndrome. I personally prefer the old disposable cameras still. I wish I could still find places to buy them but I can't around here. I feel like digital images are doomed. You take a picture and put it on your computer and the chances are high you'll forgot to move them when you get a new computer, maybe the computer will need to be reformated to fix a hardware issue and just generally I can think of plenty of pictures that were taken I wish I still had but were lost in digital limbo. Unless you feel like spending a fortune on ink and special paper it's not really economical to print out all the pictures you've ever taken and keep them around in a physical spot. It used to be so easy to take a whole roll of film worth of pictures on a vacation, drop them off at Walmart and a day later you can come back and get all those pictures back, in your hand forever for $10

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;47385868]I personally prefer the old disposable cameras still. I wish I could still find places to buy them but I can't around here. I feel like digital images are doomed. You take a picture and put it on your computer and the chances are high you'll forgot to move them when you get a new computer, maybe the computer will need to be reformated to fix a hardware issue and just generally I can think of plenty of pictures that were taken I wish I still had but were lost in digital limbo.[/QUOTE] The entirety of the current digital world just needs to be automatically etched and engraved onto clay tablets and then stored in a gargantuan warehouse in a 50 by 50 mile surface area. Follow the lessons of the ancient world, that shit lasts forever.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;47385868]At least they tore down a lot of the abandoned buildings and leased the remaining ones out. If you leave that stuff around rotting you get Detroit Syndrome. I personally prefer the old disposable cameras still. I wish I could still find places to buy them but I can't around here. I feel like digital images are doomed. You take a picture and put it on your computer and the chances are high you'll forgot to move them when you get a new computer, maybe the computer will need to be reformated to fix a hardware issue and just generally I can think of plenty of pictures that were taken I wish I still had but were lost in digital limbo. Unless you feel like spending a fortune on ink and special paper it's not really economical to print out all the pictures you've ever taken and keep them around in a physical spot. It used to be so easy to take a whole roll of film worth of pictures on a vacation, drop them off at Walmart and a day later you can come back and get all those pictures back, in your hand forever for $10[/QUOTE] Now people just put them online so they usually don't get lost.

[QUOTE=Sivics;47386860]Now people just put them online so they usually don't get lost.[/QUOTE] I remember hearing about how people had a ton of stuff on Megaupload and when it got taken down they lost it all. Pictures, videos and all kinds of other stuff. Given enough time the hosting services your files are stored on will eventually be gone and lost forever. There are already plenty of examples of things that wouldn't exist if the physical version didn't exist, especially with old video games for example.

[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;47385868]I personally prefer the old disposable cameras still. I wish I could still find places to buy them but I can't around here. I feel like digital images are doomed. You take a picture and put it on your computer and the chances are high you'll forgot to move them when you get a new computer, maybe the computer will need to be reformated to fix a hardware issue and just generally I can think of plenty of pictures that were taken I wish I still had but were lost in digital limbo. Unless you feel like spending a fortune on ink and special paper it's not really economical to print out all the pictures you've ever taken and keep them around in a physical spot. It used to be so easy to take a whole roll of film worth of pictures on a vacation, drop them off at Walmart and a day later you can come back and get all those pictures back, in your hand forever for $10[/QUOTE] good news, you can take your memory card straight to walgreens and have them print up 4x6 copies of everything for the same price you'd be paying for disposables, and home printing is extremely cheap compared to those kiosks in this day and age. The big problem is people need to not be spammy with photos, when we now have near unlimited space instead of a 24 shot roll that cost you $25 between purchasing the roll and getting it developed with a stack of 4x6 prints. Nobody worries about whether a shot is worth the cost anymore, and you end up with way too many variant photos of the same thing to really care to pick anything out and put it to paper. Good photographers and people who otherwise care about the things they're shooting still print, frame, buy photo albums and stick memories in there. We're just in the middle of a care free spammy social media revolution. It's the same as the whole argument over how music used to be good and now it's all garbage, but in hindsight it's because only the good music from long ago is around now, while we still have to deal with [i]everything[/i] from the current era, good or bad. I still shoot rolls of film and develop them myself, as it's cost effective compared not only to sending out to existing print dev shops, but even compared to the cost of instant photos. Hell, even instant polaroid shots, though really convenient and cool, cost an arm and a leg. There's a group that's trying to manufacture some cheap b/w film for it so people can shoot, but even that is only $0.18 cheaper per slide than buying (potentially unusable) old packs of the real deal [t]http://i.imgur.com/Dmr2TwN.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/2Yb5Ood.png[/t] there's nothing economical in trying to maintain mainstream film culture though. Few people use it because few people need it, we have options that don't involve a day out to walgreens to pay up in the hopes a few pictures didn't turn out blurry, badly lit, covered by a finger, or find out the attendant at the kiosk accidentally opened the camera in the light and ruined all the pictures. Not everyone wants or needs physical copies piling up around the house, although it's still fun and interesting to find old photos of random friends and family when rooting through the basement. A lot of people buy cameras because they want to share things with friends on facebook, and post for the moment instead of the long-run, and that's just fine.

[QUOTE=dai;47392979]good news, you can take your memory card straight to walgreens and have them print up 4x6 copies of everything for the same price you'd be paying for disposables, and home printing is extremely cheap compared to those kiosks in this day and age. The big problem is people need to not be spammy with photos, when we now have near unlimited space instead of a 24 shot roll that cost you $25 between purchasing the roll and getting it developed with a stack of 4x6 prints. Nobody worries about whether a shot is worth the cost anymore, and you end up with way too many variant photos of the same thing to really care to pick anything out and put it to paper. Good photographers and people who otherwise care about the things they're shooting still print, frame, buy photo albums and stick memories in there. We're just in the middle of a care free spammy social media revolution. It's the same as the whole argument over how music used to be good and now it's all garbage, but in hindsight it's because only the good music from long ago is around now, while we still have to deal with [i]everything[/i] from the current era, good or bad. I still shoot rolls of film and develop them myself, as it's cost effective compared not only to sending out to existing print dev shops, but even compared to the cost of instant photos. Hell, even instant polaroid shots, though really convenient and cool, cost an arm and a leg. There's a group that's trying to manufacture some cheap b/w film for it so people can shoot, but even that is only $0.18 cheaper per slide than buying (potentially unusable) old packs of the real deal [t]http://i.imgur.com/Dmr2TwN.png[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/2Yb5Ood.png[/t] there's nothing economical in trying to maintain mainstream film culture though. Few people use it because few people need it, we have options that don't involve a day out to walgreens to pay up in the hopes a few pictures didn't turn out blurry, badly lit, covered by a finger, or find out the attendant at the kiosk accidentally opened the camera in the light and ruined all the pictures. Not everyone wants or needs physical copies piling up around the house, although it's still fun and interesting to find old photos of random friends and family when rooting through the basement. A lot of people buy cameras because they want to share things with friends on facebook, and post for the moment instead of the long-run, and that's just fine.[/QUOTE] You're definitely more inclined to shoot more with digital. You can take 50 pictures of the same scene, skim through and delete 45 of them while still on location. With you get like 24 shots and you don't get to see them until they're developed.

[QUOTE=OvB;47393743]You're definitely more inclined to shoot more with digital. You can take 50 pictures of the same scene, skim through and delete 45 of them while still on location. With you get like 24 shots and you don't get to see them until they're developed.[/QUOTE] this is hugely part of why digital is seen as 'bad' for photography (often by people who are acting super bitter about newfangled technology), if that makes sense. If you think "yeah one of these'll work" you aren't going to put a lot of effort into getting the shot right, just getting it a bunch. It's very empowering, but also very... enlazening? whatever. The lack of fear that the one or two shots you're able to take could turn out ruined and waste your money really put a lot of emphasis on capturing things [i]right[/i], especially when you could only find out after it's put to paper. This helped tune people into taking solid photos that really held some oomph and were worth putting into a frame or album. It's a very jaded view and really comes off as "old pro looking down at lowly casuals" but it's important to understand the actual gap between the film and digital photo age cultures. It has gone from utilitarian and cautious to social and carefree. It's cool that [i]so many people[/i] have access to cheap cameras, and it should be very understandable why a huge percentage of photos will never be printed. Nice paper and ink and photo chemicals are expensive and hazardous to dispose of properly, always have been, but now we have the option to take as many photos as we want, at essentially no cost nor waste per shot you don't like should also note that it's very looked down upon nowadays, if you're taking photos of an event or something, it's seen as very unprofessional to spend time staring at your screen reviewing shots while things are still happening. People need to learn to find a setting that works and trust it to keep working without having to review every single shot while not paying attention to the action as it's happening.

I've always thought Kodak was an asian company and pronounced it as Ko-duck. It took me 18 years being in this world to learn that its actually pronounced Ko-deck. Shit, this is like a revelation to me.

[QUOTE=dai;47394402]this is hugely part of why digital is seen as 'bad' for photography (often by people who are acting super bitter about newfangled technology), if that makes sense. If you think "yeah one of these'll work" you aren't going to put a lot of effort into getting the shot right, just getting it a bunch. It's very empowering, but also very... enlazening? whatever. The lack of fear that the one or two shots you're able to take could turn out ruined and waste your money really put a lot of emphasis on capturing things [i]right[/i], especially when you could only find out after it's put to paper. This helped tune people into taking solid photos that really held some oomph and were worth putting into a frame or album. It's a very jaded view and really comes off as "old pro looking down at lowly casuals" but it's important to understand the actual gap between the film and digital photo age cultures. It has gone from utilitarian and cautious to social and carefree. It's cool that [i]so many people[/i] have access to cheap cameras, and it should be very understandable why a huge percentage of photos will never be printed. Nice paper and ink and photo chemicals are expensive and hazardous to dispose of properly, always have been, but now we have the option to take as many photos as we want, at essentially no cost nor waste per shot you don't like should also note that it's very looked down upon nowadays, if you're taking photos of an event or something, it's seen as very unprofessional to spend time staring at your screen reviewing shots while things are still happening. People need to learn to find a setting that works and trust it to keep working without having to review every single shot while not paying attention to the action as it's happening.[/QUOTE] I took a photography class at a community college. The thought behind each picture before you take it, the waiting before finding time to develop them, and the development process itself. It was all very suspenseful. But the feeling when a picture turned out great was the best.

[QUOTE=adam1172;47396358]I've always thought Kodak was an asian company and pronounced it as Ko-duck. It took me 18 years being in this world to learn that its actually pronounced Ko-deck. Shit, this is like a revelation to me.[/QUOTE] You've never heard the phrase "Kodak moment"?