# Need help on Research paper



## moon36 (Jul 24, 2009)

Hey guy! I am doing a research on How Film Company survive in Digital Age?

I need to interview someone on this topic but i couldnt find any one.
can you guys answer my question here ?

Q1-   As digital camera has been placed film in photograph industry , what do you think that film company such as Kodak should changed to fit in the digital age?

Q2-  [FONT=&quot]Even Kodak has announced retires Kodachrome color film this year, do you think that film be eliminated in photograph business?

Q3-[/FONT]  do you think film cameras and digital cameras can be balanced?


Thank You


----------



## HeY iTs ScOTtY (Jul 24, 2009)

unclear questions


----------



## djacobox372 (Jul 24, 2009)

Digital will replace film completely one day, and companies need to prepare for that. However, we're likely a decade or more away from digital being capable of everything film is.


----------



## Restomage (Jul 24, 2009)

moon36 said:


> Hey guy! I am doing a research on How Film Company survive in Digital Age?



They don't.


----------



## Josh66 (Jul 24, 2009)

*Q1-  As digital camera has been placed film in photograph industry , what do you think that film company such as Kodak should changed to fit in the digital age?*

Companies like Kodak and Fujifilm also make digital cameras, so they aren't ignoring the digital market.
I don't think there's a lot they can do (to increase film sales)...  Not sure that more/better advertising would be effective - not sure how many new film shooters they could get from that.

Some people will (or have) stop shooting film, others (probably less) will start.  Then there's a core of people that will never change.  Overall, I think they will loose a few film shooters - but for as long as they make film, there will be customers.

*Q2-  Even Kodak has announced retires Kodachrome color film this year, do you think that film be eliminated in photograph business?*

I don't personally think it will ever be entirely eliminated.  I'm sure they said the same thing about LPs when tapes & CDs came out...  They still make LPs, and people still buy them.

Even though they (Kodak) retired Kodachrome, they brought back Ektar after close to 15 years of retirement.  Other film companies are releasing new films too.


*Q3-  do you think film cameras and digital cameras can be balanced?*

What do you mean by "balanced"?  Balanced how?

Production by camera companies?  Production has already fallen with the major camera companies, I think it will pretty much stay where it is right now.

Sales?  ...They will never have the market share that digital has now, but people will still buy them.

Using it?  Using a film camera is just like using a digital camera.  The only thing you have to do differently is put film in it.





djacobox372 said:


> Digital will replace film completely one day, and companies need to prepare for that. However, we're likely a decade or more away from digital being capable of everything film is.



...I doubt that (that film will completely disappear).


----------



## blash (Jul 24, 2009)

Unless you're looking at this purely from a mass-market standpoint, your perspective is all wrong. Professional landscape photographers still use large format film, and many professional photographers in other, non-deadline-sensitive specialties are rediscovering film. See: The Visual Science Lab: Everything old is new again.....Photography 180.


----------



## skieur (Jul 24, 2009)

The technology is there to totally wipe out film.  The chips are waiting in the wings including a 3D photo chip.  It is all a matter of marketting.

skieur


----------



## christopher walrath (Jul 24, 2009)

I must disagree to a point.  Has film replaced oils or acrylics?  Painters still paint with brush and canvas.  Sketch artists still employ lead or charcoal to paper.  Photography was run down by painters just as digital is run down by film 'purists'.

I am a film photographer.  And always will be.  I enlarge my own photographic prints from my own self-processed negatives.  And I would never take up digital photography unless and probably way after someone outlawed film for two reasons.

1.  I love film.  I began with film out of availability.  Growing up there was NO digital photography.  I was given a Minolta XG-M and never looked back.  Then it became a decision based on affordability.  I was looking at the digital cameras and dreaming of my perfect setup whilst burning film away.  It then became a matter of a love for the medium.  Film has grown on me little by little and I would never give it up now.

2.  I got my wife a Canon Digital Rebel xt for Christmas as it employs the EF lens that is on her EOS630.  She has fibromyalgia and doesn't get the chance to get out much.  And we cannot afford to have someone else develop our film, costs too much anymore.  And she shoots color.  I shoot black and white so I cannot do it.  But she loves photography and I wanted her to be able to actually see her photographs on her laptop to encourage her to do more.
     While playing with her camera one day and going through the manual I realized that as much training and knowledge goes into digital photography to acheive as much a level of proficiency as I have acheived with film.  So why should I change if it's going to take that long again when I can simply improve upon what I already know and do.

Film may well go the way of the do-do one day.  But until then I hope to daily contribute to its complete consumption.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jul 24, 2009)

moon36 said:


> Q1-   As digital camera has been placed film in photograph industry , what do you think that film company such as Kodak should changed to fit in the digital age?
> 
> Q2-  [FONT=&quot]Even Kodak has announced retires Kodachrome color film this year, do you think that film be eliminated in photograph business?
> 
> Q3-[/FONT]  do you think film cameras and digital cameras can be balanced?



Q1 = Companys that were primarily film (Kodak being the biggest), attempted to ignore the introduction of Digital Cameras. They were the last to embrace it. They have changed over to concentrate on Digital Imaging products ... so they are already changing.

Q2 = Film will only be eliminated when there is no sales of it. As long as there is a minimum level of purchases, there is no reason to discontinue it. Kodachrome was discontinued mainly due to the processing availability (Kodak labs have not processed this film in a long time).

Q3 = ?


----------



## Actor (Jul 24, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> Q1 = Companys that were primarily film (Kodak being the biggest), attempted to ignore the introduction of Digital Cameras. They were the last to embrace it. They have changed over to concentrate on Digital Imaging products ... so they are already changing.


Somewhere on TPF someone posted that Kodak made the first digital camera.  They've been dealing with digital from the beginning and digital now accounts for more than half their business.



dxqcanada said:


> Q2 = Film will only be eliminated when there is no sales of it. As long as there is a minimum level of purchases, there is no reason to discontinue it.


Chevrolet discontinued the Chevette when it was still their top seller.  They decided that they could make more money by making something else.  A product that makes a profit is not enough.  It has to make a big profit.



dxqcanada said:


> Kodachrome was discontinued mainly due to the processing availability (Kodak labs have not processed this film in a long time).


Kodak was still processing Kodachrome up to about 5 years ago.  There are still private labs that are willing to process it if Kodak would produce it.  Kodak also discontinued the manufacture of film cameras about 5 years ago.


----------



## skieur (Jul 25, 2009)

I once used 2 inch reel to reel videotape for broadcast television production.
Now it does not exist.  I used 3/4 inch videocassette as well, That no longer exists either.

As the quality of digital improves, film will continue to disappear.  Despite the fanatics, film will become harder to get, a special order item at some point, and at a rising price.  The same will be true of film processing.

The transition from film to digital will be necessary at some point for every serious photographer, it is just a matter of when.

skieur


----------



## musicaleCA (Jul 25, 2009)

Point, and regarding the large and medium formats, it's a matter of when the price drops enough to make them feasible. Honestly, when looking at a new Hassle or old film one, it's easy to take the film because, well, it's simply cheaper.


----------



## Dwig (Jul 25, 2009)

moon36 said:


> Q1- As digital camera has been placed film in photograph industry , what do you think that film company such as Kodak should changed to fit in the digital age?



Adapt or die. Nikon and Canon, after many decades of making film cameras are still on top in the digital era, far ahead of any of the electronics manufacturers that have jumped in to the photographic market now that its primarily digital.

Kodak began adapting to the digital age back in the 1960's or late '50s. They've been on the leading edge of image sensor manufacturing for the last 40 years or so. Virtually all of the medium format digital cameras and backs today, not to mention those in the Pentagon's spy satelites and NASA's research telescopes, are built around on Kodak sensors.



> Q2- Even Kodak has announced retires Kodachrome color film this year, do you think that film be eliminated in photograph business?



Its not a question of whether it will be or not. The question is whether film is already dead, in the sense of commercial "business" photography, or whether it will be very, very shortly. The only life film has now is in the hands of artists who prefer working with film, either because it fits their artistic style better or because of their inability to learn a new medium. Even that artistic use will likely die as manufacturing film and the matching papers requires rather high production volumes or it becomes very expensive. Hand sensitized film and papers processed in personal darkrooms may be the only wet processes that survive.



> Q3-do you think film cameras and digital cameras can be balanced?



Define balanced. Is a film to digital ratio of between 1:100,000,000 to 0:100 balanced? If so, yes. If not, no.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 25, 2009)

skieur said:


> As the quality of digital improves, film will continue to disappear.  Despite the fanatics, film will become harder to get, a special order item at some point, and at a rising price.  The same will be true of film processing.
> 
> The transition from film to digital will be necessary at some point for every serious photographer, it is just a matter of when.
> 
> skieur




I wouldn't be so sure about that. There may very well be problems with digital photography that we haven't discovered yet as is often the case with new technologies.

A couple I already know about:

* Good luck if you run down your batteries and there is nowhere nearby to recharge. In the first 10 years of my career, I quite often was away from any electric outlet for a couple weeks at a time. With my film cameras, no problem. One does not use any battery and another uses it only for the meter. I know enough about exposure that even if I lose that battery (which lasts for months anyway) I can still get usable images.

* Digital is not that cheap compared to film if you factor in everything. The three film bodies I still have, two are over 25 years old and my Leica was my Dad's before I "stole" it from him so it's 35-40 years old. Do you really think you're ever going to use a 25 yo digital body? It might still work but are you going to want to use an 8-10 mp body when everybody else is using a 20 mp? Then you have to factor in the cost of bigger and bigger computers to handle the bigger and bigger files that your images are becoming; software upgrades (some people here don't even have any software except free stuff that doesn't seem to do much); more and more harddrives (and whatever over media) to store all your photos and make multiple back-ups because you can't really trust your photos to just one; etc, etc.

* Then there's the historical conservation question. I have a collection of about 300 glass negatives that I am getting ready to use in a project. Those were found by a friend of mine in the attic of a rental vacation home by the sea. Who knows how long they had been sitting there and 90% of them are in perfect condition. I also have a collection of about 500 glass stereo slides from WWI that also came from an attic where they probably sat for many years. 75% of them are in perfect condition and there's a museum waiting for me to die so they can get their hands on them  How much do you think would be left of harddrives, CDs or DVDs after so many years of improper storage? If some people can't afford proper software to PP their photos, what's the likelihood their are backing up their collection properly?

You could say that the pros do and that is all that matter. Unfortunately, that's wrong. A whole lot of historically valuable photos today were shot by amateurs. Both of my collections were shot by amateurs. My glass negatives were shot by the village priest and the stereo slides were shot by a lowly soldier. I'm also sitting on a 200 lbs trunk full of photos (both prints and negatives) that I inherited from one of my uncle a couple years back. Family photos. Ok, so what? Well, my greatgrandfather was a designer/engineer/test pilot/etc in the automobile/vehicle industry. My dad and his brother (the uncle) have already contributed a bunch of "family photos" to two books. There are already two more in the works and I haven't gone through half of what's in the trunk. And those were all amateurs' photos.

How much of that kind of stuff are we going to lose because of digital? Have you seen the movie "Letters from Iwo Jima"? The movie was based on letters written by soldiers who were there and, when it came out, I remember reading an article about the fact that the likelihood of such a movie being done about the present Iraq war is very unlikely since soldiers don't write anymore... they e-mail.

* and last, there is this little accident that happened to a friend of mine that I can't help but think about sometimes when I look at my DSLR. He fell off a boat with his cameras. We reacted quickly and both photos and cameras survived. Do you want to try that with a digital body? Considering what happened to my wife's cellphone when she dropped it in a toilet for about 10 seconds, I don't. 



You talked about TV studio technology so I'll tell you about audio recording technology. All the studios that I am still in touch with have kept their 2" tape recorders and most of them use them on a regular basis.

Things to think about...


----------



## Actor (Jul 25, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > As the quality of digital improves, film will continue to disappear.  Despite the fanatics, film will become harder to get, a special order item at some point, and at a rising price.  The same will be true of film processing.
> ...


Something we'll learn to live with while awaiting the solar powered digital camera and the battery that powers the camera for months.



> * Digital is not that cheap compared to film if you factor in everything.


But the trend is: digital is getting cheaper; film is getting more expensive.



> The three film bodies I still have, two are over 25 years old and my Leica was my Dad's before I "stole" it from him so it's 35-40 years old. Do you really think you're ever going to use a 25 yo digital body? It might still work but are you going to want to use an 8-10 mp body when everybody else is using a 20 mp? Then you have to factor in the cost of bigger and bigger computers to handle the bigger and bigger files that your images are becoming; software upgrades (some people here don't even have any software except free stuff that doesn't seem to do much); more and more harddrives (and whatever over media) to store all your photos and make multiple back-ups because you can't really trust your photos to just one; etc, etc.


The chase for more and more megapixels will reach a point of diminishing returns.  It happened with film.  The dominate consumer gauge today is 35mm but I recall that in the 1050s and 60s it was 60mm.  The family camera used 620 or 120 film.  Only pros used 35mm.  So it will go with digital.  Ultimately X megapixels will become a consumer standard and only pros will use anything else.  In fact I think X is already trending to 6.  As for bigger and bigger hard drives, they'll continue to get cheaper and cheaper.  I recall spending $60,000 (the company's money, not mine ) for a 120 megabyte drive.  I recently bought a 500 Gig drive for $100.



> * Then there's the historical conservation question. I have a collection of about 300 glass negatives that I am getting ready to use in a project. Those were found by a friend of mine in the attic of a rental vacation home by the sea. Who knows how long they had been sitting there and 90% of them are in perfect condition. I also have a collection of about 500 glass stereo slides from WWI that also came from an attic where they probably sat for many years. 75% of them are in perfect condition and there's a museum waiting for me to die so they can get their hands on them  How much do you think would be left of harddrives, CDs or DVDs after so many years of improper storage? If some people can't afford proper software to PP their photos, what's the likelihood their are backing up their collection properly?
> 
> You could say that the pros do and that is all that matter. Unfortunately, that's wrong. A whole lot of historically valuable photos today were shot by amateurs. Both of my collections were shot by amateurs. My glass negatives were shot by the village priest and the stereo slides were shot by a lowly soldier. I'm also sitting on a 200 lbs trunk full of photos (both prints and negatives) that I inherited from one of my uncle a couple years back. Family photos. Ok, so what? Well, my greatgrandfather was a designer/engineer/test pilot/etc in the automobile/vehicle industry. My dad and his brother (the uncle) have already contributed a bunch of "family photos" to two books. There are already two more in the works and I haven't gone through half of what's in the trunk. And those were all amateurs' photos.
> 
> How much of that kind of stuff are we going to lose because of digital? Have you seen the movie "Letters from Iwo Jima"? The movie was based on letters written by soldiers who were there and, when it came out, I remember reading an article about the fact that the likelihood of such a movie being done about the present Iraq war is very unlikely since soldiers don't write anymore... they e-mail.


Unhappily you are right-on.  And it's not just photography.  Archivists, librarians and historians are bemoaning the loss of all kinds of data.  Would you believe there's a demand for drives that will read 8 inch floppies?  And even paper records are turning to ash because they're on acid paper.



> * and last, there is this little accident that happened to a friend of mine that I can't help but think about sometimes when I look at my DSLR. He fell off a boat with his cameras. We reacted quickly and both photos and cameras survived. Do you want to try that with a digital body? Considering what happened to my wife's cellphone when she dropped it in a toilet for about 10 seconds, I don't.


Again, right-on.  But then, my film SLR has a computer in it.  I'm really careful with it around water.

I hope you realize I'm being sort of a devil's advocate here.  I love film.  The future I see is not the one I would choose, but I don't have a choice.  I'm going to have to live in it.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 25, 2009)

Actor said:


> I hope you realize I'm being sort of a devil's advocate here.  I love film.  The future I see is not the one I would choose, but I don't have a choice.  I'm going to have to live in it.




This is a discussion. You can say anything you want and it will not bother me. Playing devil's advocate or not does not matter. In this case I only wanted to make some people aware that we don't really know where technology is taking us. And it is in the same spirit that I will respond to our response 

Something we'll learn to live with while awaiting the solar powered digital camera and the battery that powers the camera for months.

True and it will probably be here before I finish typing my response LOL. And in the meantime, how many very important photos did we miss? Now, I'll admit this comes from an idealist who still believes that photos can make a difference.

The chase for more and more megapixels will reach a point of diminishing returnsed"

I believe that is true but I am no computer expert and, on the other hand, I believe technology manufacturers will find ways after ways of making us think they have some better thing we can't live without and because we are so gadget oriented, we'll fall for it. And we'll spend more money.

Unhappily you are right-on.

Unhappily, I believe I am. And because I am one of those weirdos that believe we can learn from history if we only pay attention to it, it is very sad.

Again, right-on. But then, my film SLR has a computer in it. I'm really careful with it around water.

And again, unhappily I believe I am. How many important photos are we going to miss because we are trying to protect our equipment. Or our life as this little story will show: I spend time in Afghanistan when it was occupied by the russians. On one of my trips there I agreed to guide a tv crew. Worst experience of my life. The camera guy would jump behind a rock every time he heard the slightest noise 

One day, those russian helicopters show up, coming up the valley and they start shooting at us. Absolutely beautiful visually and this guy is once again behind a rock  From what I heard later there was absolutely no interesting footage from this guy's trip.)


----------



## blash (Jul 25, 2009)

Actor said:


> But the trend is: digital is getting cheaper; film is getting more expensive.



Not really. Fact is, I can get one of the best 35mm film bodies on the planet, the Nikon F5, for $350 used. Used Nikon D40's, the absolute lowest end DSLR on the planet, doesn't go for much less used. Consumer film SLR's can be had for under $70. 

Or, you can pay over $4,000 for a Nikon D3.  What's that you say? You can get a D90 for a little over a grand? Or a D300 for $1500? :lmao::lmao:

Fact is, if you're a low-volume shooter, _you cannot beat film_ in terms of affordability. Yeah, I'll pay $7 for a roll of Velvia. Then I'll pay another $9 to have it developed, and then maybe $14 for prints, if I decide to print anything. $30 a week, if I shoot every week - a figure that goes down the more I process and print myself. Yeah, after a bajillion weeks a digital camera is less expensive. But it's a hell of a lot easier to come up with a small amount of money per week than it is to come up with a huge amount of money at once, as anyone who has ever used a mortgage to buy a house knows. And in the meantime, I'll enjoy higher quality pictures and have more fun while shooting, and use a higher quality camera body. Sounds like win-win to me.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 25, 2009)

blash said:


> Actor said:
> 
> 
> > But the trend is: digital is getting cheaper; film is getting more expensive.
> ...



:thumbup:


----------



## manaheim (Jul 25, 2009)

Telephones will replace parcel post.

Television will replace radio.

Email will replace parcel post.

Microwaves will replace stoves.

Electronic fuel injection will replace carbeuration.

Digital will replace film.

See a pattern?

Generally speaking, it's INCREDIBLY rare that something outright replaces something else.  Very frequently is the case where the new thing and old thing battle a bit and each finds it's place.  Occasionally the new thing trumps the old thing in "common" usage, with only specialized or "hobbyists" working with the old thing, but very rarely does the new thing utterly kill the old.

In photography I think film is almost as near to dead as it ever will be.  We're already at a point where very few "average consumers" will ever use film again... in the next several years, I'd be amazed if you saw film sold at any consumer store... but a lot of pros and specialized people will continue using film for many many years to come.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 25, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Telephones will replace parcel post.
> 
> Television will replace radio.
> 
> ...




Agree. Very nice way of putting it.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 26, 2009)

^^^ thanks.


----------



## skieur (Jul 26, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Telephones will replace parcel post.
> 
> Television will replace radio.
> 
> ...



Yes, I do.  Dealing a lot with lawyers and companies, email and fax is replacing parcel post and couriers are used for shipping important documents.  Microwave/convection ovens are replacing regular ovens particularly in RVs and motorhomes and the only thing a stove is used for is frying and boiling some vegetables even in a lot of regular homes.  Some stove tops have even been replaced with a barbecue grill.  Considering electronic fuel injection in my new outboard motor and my new lawnmower, I would say yes, it will replace the regular carburater.  And digital is replacing film,.... so yes I do see a pattern. 

skieur


----------



## Actor (Jul 26, 2009)

blash said:


> Actor said:
> 
> 
> > But the trend is: digital is getting cheaper; film is getting more expensive.
> ...


In the long run it's not the price of the camera, it's the price of the media.



> Fact is, if you're a low-volume shooter, _you cannot beat film_ in terms of affordability.


The price of film forces me to be a low volume shooter.  One 36 exposure roll costs about $5, processing about $7.50 and a scan to a disk is about $2.50, a total of $15.  If I shoot a roll a week that's $65/month.  Since it's just a  hobby that's about all I can afford.

Consider the way my wife shoots with her digital.  She shoots 700+ frames on a 2 GByte card, downloads those to her computer, clears the card and repeats.  She prints only the best ones and emails a lot more to friends and relatives.  She gets a lot of shots that I miss because she can decide later if she wants to print it or delete it or...  That's a decision I have to make before I press the shutter.


----------



## Actor (Jul 26, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Telephones will replace parcel post.
> 
> Television will replace radio.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately I think film may be one of those rare cases where something outright replaces something else.  When Kodak and Fuji stop producing the stuff I doubt there will be enough demand to keep the minor manufacturers in business.  Of course there will be die hard hobbyists who will find a way to brew their own, as well as micro-manufacturers who will cater to those willing to pay the price.  Don't be surprised if a roll of film eventually goes to $100.

Just in case, I'm already working on a way to completely get the emulsion off a negative so that, after scanning, I can use the acetate to brew my next roll.


----------



## blash (Jul 26, 2009)

Actor said:


> The price of film forces me to be a low volume shooter.  One 36 exposure roll costs about $5, processing about $7.50 and a scan to a disk is about $2.50, a total of $15.  If I shoot a roll a week that's $65/month.  Since it's just a  hobby that's about all I can afford.
> 
> Consider the way my wife shoots with her digital.  She shoots 700+ frames on a 2 GByte card, downloads those to her computer, clears the card and repeats.  She prints only the best ones and emails a lot more to friends and relatives.  She gets a lot of shots that I miss because she can decide later if she wants to print it or delete it or...  That's a decision I have to make before I press the shutter.



Yes, in a way film requires you to be a low-volume shooter. But in doing so it makes you think more about your shots than just aiming and spraying the shutter. How many of your wife's shots, out of the 700+, are keepers? What's that percentage? With film since you're forced to work within constraints, you tend to be more careful and thus get better shots.

I actually like to work with 24 exposure rolls - now that I put some more thought into the process, I have difficulty even filling up a 24 exposure roll, and it's easier to spool up and develop.


----------



## Phranquey (Jul 26, 2009)

blash said:


> Yes, in a way film requires you to be a low-volume shooter. But in doing so it makes you think more about your shots than just aiming and spraying the shutter. How many of your wife's shots, out of the 700+, are keepers? What's that percentage? With film since you're forced to work within constraints, you tend to be more careful and thus get better shots.
> 
> I actually like to work with 24 exposure rolls - now that I put some more thought into the process, I have difficulty even filling up a 24 exposure roll, and it's easier to spool up and develop.


 
This is a good point...but...I love to chase storms.  Do you realize what the film cost was for shooting a couple hundred shots only to get nothing?  It was enough to make me quit doing that until the digital age came about.  Now I can easily go out and pop off gigabytes worth, and if I get nothing, no extra cost to me.

Don't get me wrong, I still love film, and still do use it occasionally, but I find it happening less and less.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 26, 2009)

I wasn't suggesting that the new thing wouldn't become prevalent (sp?), I was only saying that the new thing very rarely irradicates the old.

You may see more microwaves than stoves in RVs, but people are still considering stoves pretty critical in their homes.


----------



## skieur (Jul 26, 2009)

manaheim said:


> I wasn't suggesting that the new thing wouldn't become prevalent (sp?), I was only saying that the new thing very rarely irradicates the old.
> 
> You may see more microwaves than stoves in RVs, but people are still considering stoves pretty critical in their homes.



Oh, but it does slowly but surely irradicate the old.  I have been around long enough to see it happen.   It doesn't happen instantly but it does happen.

I orignally never thought that VHS would so quickly be eliminated by DVD but it happened, and Bluray is certainly eating into the regular DVD and will eventually replace it as well.

With Kodachrome gone, the writing is definitely on the wall for film.  It is just a matter of time.

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 26, 2009)

skieur said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't suggesting that the new thing wouldn't become prevalent (sp?), I was only saying that the new thing very rarely irradicates the old.
> ...



VHS went out quickly because tape is a bad medium for the consumer market as it ages pretty badly. It was alright for video cams because it was easier to deal with than 8 mm film and, to be honest, most people don't watch their family movies that often. But for movie buffs, it was the pits. Laser discs were quite beautiful but they never took off. So, yes DVD took over.

On the other hand, nothing much I read about BluRay agrees with what you are saying. It's making some progress but definitely not as much as they were hoping for. I personally tell my friends not to buy BluRay and when I show them the difference between BluRay and a regular DVD in an upconverter player, they stick to their DVDs.


As for stoves and microwaves, I just had to laugh when you mentioned that. You are right that a lot of people don't use stoves anymore but that is only because they don't cook anymore  Nonetheless I have yet to see a house for sale without a stove in the kitchen. And, according to what I've been reading recently, because of the state of the economy, people are starting to cook again. So I imagine they are using their stoves again.

Cheers


----------



## manaheim (Jul 26, 2009)

skieur said:


> Oh, but it does slowly but surely irradicate the old. I have been around long enough to see it happen.  It doesn't happen instantly but it does happen.
> 
> I orignally never thought that VHS would so quickly be eliminated by DVD but it happened, and Bluray is certainly eating into the regular DVD and will eventually replace it as well.
> 
> ...


 
VHS is still pretty actively used in a variety of applications... one of which being security cameras.  However, sec cams are getting the 1/2 punch as now there are tivo-style devices for this purpose.  Regardless... still in use.

Irradicated is a TOUGH thing to accomplish.  Whittled down to almost nothing?  Sure... but even that takes a while.


----------



## manaheim (Jul 26, 2009)

Ahem... (from Wikipedia)

Although VHS has quickly faded from mainstream home-video, the VCR is still used in many US households. The Washington Post noted that as of 2005, 94.5 million Americans still owned VHS format VCRs.[10]

The last standalone JVC VHS-only unit was produced in 2008.[14] JVC, like many other manufacturers, still makes combination DVD+VHS units.
Several retail chains in the United States and in Europe planned to stop selling VHS equipment in 2004,[15] 2005,[16] and 2006.[17] Despite these plans, VHS recorders and blank tapes are still being sold in major stores worldwide. As an acknowledgment of VHS popularity, in 2009 Panasonic has announced the world&#8217;s first dual deck VHS-Blu-ray player.[18]


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Jul 26, 2009)

manaheim said:


> Although VHS has quickly faded from mainstream home-video, the VCR is still used in many US households. The Washington Post noted that as of 2005, 94.5 million Americans still owned VHS format VCRs.



Owning them is one thing. Are they being used?

I just sold mine recently after not using it for the last 6 years 

More seriously, they are being used. When my father in law decided to move into an assisted living facility a couple months back we did a garage sale to get rid of all the stuff he couldn't take with him.

That included 2 VCRs and about 500 tapes. We were surprised but both the VCRs and about 95% of the tapes sold within the first 3 hours. The tapes that didn't sell were either new blank ones or movies taped from the TV.


----------



## blash (Jul 27, 2009)

Phranquey said:


> blash said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, in a way film requires you to be a low-volume shooter. But in doing so it makes you think more about your shots than just aiming and spraying the shutter. How many of your wife's shots, out of the 700+, are keepers? What's that percentage? With film since you're forced to work within constraints, you tend to be more careful and thus get better shots.
> ...



Same kind of reasoning applies to stuff like water droplet photography where you need a high FPS and a lot of luck. Most people don't shoot that kind of stuff though


----------



## Steph (Jul 27, 2009)

There might be some future for film in emerging countries. When more people from China, India, Brazil... take up photography, the cost of a digital camera and a computer will be out of their reach whereas a cheap film camera and a few rolls of film a year would be affordable. There might be a huge market for film there for a few decades to come. I don't know, just a thought.


----------



## Actor (Jul 28, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Although VHS has quickly faded from mainstream home-video, the VCR is still used in many US households. The Washington Post noted that as of 2005, 94.5 million Americans still owned VHS format VCRs.
> ...



I still use mine, primarily to time shift programs, which is the reason I bought my first one oh so many years ago.  I guess there is more modern technology, like TIVO, to do this but I can't see getting one since I have something that works.


----------



## skieur (Aug 5, 2009)

From Actor: In fact I think X is already trending to 6. As for bigger and bigger hard drives, they'll continue to get cheaper and cheaper. I recall spending $60,000 (the company's money, not mine ) for a 120 megabyte drive.  I recently bought a 500 Gig drive for $100.

Where have you been if you think that 6 megapixels is the consumer standard?  Even point and shoot cameras are heading to 14 megapixels.  Full frame digital is in the 21 plus range.

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 5, 2009)

skieur said:


> Where have you been if you think that 6 megapixels is the consumer standard?  Even point and shoot cameras are heading to 14 megapixels.  Full frame digital is in the 21 plus range.



And does it make any difference? A snapshot at 21mp is still a snapshot and if you print nothing but 4x6 it makes no darn difference whatsoever anyway.

But the cost of the cameras makes a huge difference in what photos of historical value we will see in the future. There are two ways in which this is a problem. 1/ the 21mp is too expensive so I don't buy a camera at all. 2/ because the electronics industry is always promising something better in the near future, some people are forever waiting instead of actually shooting.


----------



## Josh66 (Aug 5, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> some people are forever waiting instead of actually shooting.



We see this a lot here too...

People endlessly researching their new camera.  Eventually you have to say - "Just buy one!  Who cares what it is?!"


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 5, 2009)

O|||||||O said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > some people are forever waiting instead of actually shooting.
> ...




:thumbup:

The other thing I can't help and think about is the fact that the more sophisticated the cameras are getting the more they are becoming P&S cameras. Very expensive P&S cameras. Some people seem to think that they are better photographers than you are because they spent 2-3 times as much on their cameras 

Whatever...


----------



## skieur (Aug 5, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Where have you been if you think that 6 megapixels is the consumer standard?  Even point and shoot cameras are heading to 14 megapixels.  Full frame digital is in the 21 plus range.
> ...



What happens is that a consumer buys a point and shoot and is relatively happy until he/she sees photos from someone with a compact camera, so they upgrade.  A former film shooter starts off with a DSLR.   More people these days are also looking for 8 by 10s that they can display on a piano or even larger prints they can put on the wall of their kids, grandkids, or of travel photos they have taken.  I have even seen non-photographers looking closely at sharpness and detail in prints.  They are used to seeing quality sharpness in magazine images and are expecting it in photos as well.

As far as buying and megapixels consumers tend to buy what they can afford and the smarter ones realize that megapixels are only part of the image quality "picture".  Nevertheless the tendency is to upgrade as in from 5 megapixels to 8, from 8 to 10 or 12, and 10 to 14 or 16 and 16 to 21 or 24.

skieur


----------



## Torus34 (Aug 6, 2009)

It seems to this old white-haired country mouse that something is being overlooked, perhaps in the same way that a fictional character overlooked the fact that he was speaking prose.

If you go into any drug store, super market or local deli [or suburban equivalent], you'll find lots of film cameras for sale. They're everywhere. They cost under $10, complete with film.

Digital has a way to go before it can economically take over the particular niche which these throwaways occupy.

And as long as manufacturers continue to make film for these little wonders, it's not all that costly for them to continue to manufacture film in 35mm and 120 sizes as well.

Sidebar: If you're looking for an afternoon's carefree [and inexpensive] challenge, buy one of these delightful rigs and see just what you, with your knowledge of composition and lighting, can do with it.  [Nb: remember -- expensive equipment doesn't make a picture.  A photographer makes a picture.]


----------



## skieur (Aug 6, 2009)

Torus34 said:


> It seems to this old white-haired country mouse that something is being overlooked, perhaps in the same way that a fictional character overlooked the fact that he was speaking prose.
> 
> If you go into any drug store, super market or local deli [or suburban equivalent], you'll find lots of film cameras for sale. They're everywhere. They cost under $10, complete with film.
> 
> ...



Disposable cameras are designed to produce tolerable snap shots for those with minimal knowledge or background in photography.  Average lighting conditions and simple posed shots are the assumption of the designers.  I passed that stage before I entered my teens.

skieur


----------



## christopher walrath (Aug 6, 2009)

I am happy to have been a part of this thread.  It has been a pleasant discussion.

I foresee film and digital coexisting.  Digital seems to be invading the 'professional' sector of photography while film has been relegated, more or less, to its new home with the 'Hobbyist' or even 'Hobby-use' amongst many professionals of the digital revolution.  There is just something about film.  For me anyway.  And I honestly cannot speak of comparison as I have never seriously even attempted to shoot digital other than dinky Coolpix P&Ss.

But, as I mentioned before, I imagine it would take an equal amount of time to become proficient in any form of photography as any other.  I have spent twenty years to get where I am with film and I know I would be just as vested in time and effort if I had been digital since its consumer inception.

So, the megapixels will increase and the digital processing will become more rapid and complete.  The film will probably become less to a point where there are few choices remaining and will level off there.  Same goes for paper and chemistry.  Because there will always be enough photographers using film to justify its existence and perhaps to generate the required profit for continuance.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 6, 2009)

skieur said:


> Disposable cameras are designed to produce tolerable snap shots for those with minimal knowledge or background in photography.  Average lighting conditions and simple posed shots are the assumption of the designers.  I passed that stage before I entered my teens.
> 
> skieur



In the hands of the right person, they can produce wonderful images. Maybe not the kind you're likely to see in an advertisement but the kind you could see in a gallery.

My best selling art photo was shot with an old Brownie with a scratched lens.

There is also a huge body of art photography produced by the simplest of Polaroid cameras which were originally designed for the same people as the disposables.


----------



## Torus34 (Aug 7, 2009)

CC:

Yup!  A camera does not make a picture [in the highest sense of 'picture'] any more than a word processor makes a novel [or, for that matter, owning a Steinway(r) makes one a pianist.]

Or, perhaps from another vantage point, a 'fine' artist may sometimes eschew expensive brushes and modern pigments to make an image with pencil or charcoal.

The image thus made is not made less by the equipment employed.


----------



## CSR Studio (Aug 7, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > Torus34 said:
> ...


 
Excellent point c.cloudwalker and Torus34. Too many "photographers" get caught up in the equipment and not the image. It is about the light and the image. 

When I first started school, I have a bachelors in Photography, the first thing they did was take away our cameras. Know what they gave us? A pinhole camera, told us to go shoot. Equipment doesn't make the photographer, the images do. If someone won't take a disposable and shoot with it, sounds like they aren't much of a photographer. I have made some great shots with pinholes, brownies, disposables. Any camera works for me.

Oh, and film isn't going away. For just the reason that Torus34 said, those disposable cameras.


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Aug 7, 2009)

CSR Studio said:


> Too many "photographers" get caught up in the equipment and not the image. It is about the light and the image.



Hey, I don't mind. Less competition for people with a vision.

CSR Studio? Does that mean you are in the CSRA?


----------



## CSR Studio (Aug 7, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> CSR Studio said:
> 
> 
> > Too many "photographers" get caught up in the equipment and not the image. It is about the light and the image.
> ...


 
Nope, just the first letter in the three photographers names that started the business.

We could definitely use less competition.


----------



## rom4n301 (Aug 9, 2009)

honestly, i dont see how digital cant completely take over.. i mean.. theres so many people out there who enjoy taking pictures then developing/enlarging them themselves. and personally.. i love shooting film and having the feeling of not knowing what ur ganna get till its developed..


----------

