Can you give a link to that press release? I checked the Kodak site and I did not see anything.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's because it's not film, but film cameras they are stopping production of. Well, they a re no longer producing black and white paper either. Here is a link t their camera stuff: [a href=\"http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3948032/]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3948032/[/url]
And if you Goolge "Kodak film production" you will find information on the black and white film stopping production. But the writing is on the wall for all film eventually
Here is one from Nikon too:
Nikon Plans to Stop Making Most Cameras That Use Film
Article Tools Sponsored By
By MARTIN FACKLER
Published: January 12, 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/12/technolo...317d8c&ei=5090&Here is Canon's vow to not produce anymore film cameras:
"Following on the heels of Nikon, Canon will no longer develop compact and SLR film cameras. While the old models will remain in stores and they will continue to sell and support them, there won't be a new 35mm Rebel in our futures."
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/top/canon-t...tion-176239.phpOn another note, here is a little thing from Ken Rockwell, who I respect, but this article is ludicrous.:
"One cannot make double or multiple exposures with digital cameras except for maybe one model of Pentax."
It's full of these idiotic remarks. For instance, why would one want to make a double exposure with a digital camera when you can use compositing with much greater accuracy and quality? Also, if you want a double exposure, you can use a longer shutter speed and just hold a black card over the lens. Pull the card off to capture the next subject, then cover it again. So have fun with that article, but take it with a grain of salt.
Here is another one: Go spend $1,500 on a film camera and you have a fine machine you'll be using to create great images 20 years from now. Spend that same $1,500 on a digital camera and you will have given it to The Salvation Army or Goodwill in three years."
Huh? Digital cameras are getting good enough that a 20D will produce portrait shots good enough for most professionals for years up to A4, and for most portrait stores that don't do big name fashion shoots, but mostly family portraits, etc. I mean it already looks better than they were getting with their portrait cameras. If not, why is Olin Mill's--the great mall shot company--now moving to digital? And if he thinks people will be shooting film in 20 years, he probably still thinks people write books with typewriters too, or ink wells and dry pens. But I thik this article was written in 2003.
One more and I'm going to bed: "Film will remain king for landscapes and anything that holds still and requires big prints. I even prefer its color rendition for Internet use. It's also the king for anything you intend to want to print years from now. In 5 years anything shot on today's digital cameras will look awful compared to what was shot on film today, by the standards of the future. Remember, digital already has replaced 35mm film, but the economies of the market and scale will not have it approach larger film format quality any decade soon, since the demand is not there to justify development at any price you'll want to afford."
Sure Ken, and a good old steel file cabinet will not be replaced by a 4GHrtz multi-Terabyte Hard Drive Computer for the same reason. I remember in 1988 we were using 10, 000 dollar 8 Mhz IMB PS2s at Shell Oil Company with 1 MB of RAM when no one ever dreamed of owning one for their living room. In less than 6 years I had an IBM clone running at 66Mhrtz with 64 MB of RAM that I paid about 1400.00 dollars for.
Remember also that software interpolation, along with hardware, is getting better in leaps and bounds too. So that 12MB RAW you just shot with your 5D may look even better in the future at 20 x 30 than it does now at 8 x 12. Remember that the RAW file is the raw bits, not static film, and can be manipulated now and in the future as technology to manipulate it develops.
Ken Rockwell does have some other interesting points too that you should read. One is that there is so much more information on a 4 x 5 slide (than any digital camera has, including the 30MP backs), that digital scanners are now getting so much more out of. So as long as the slides last, you can get huge information from them using 100, 000 dollar scanners, and even low end 1, 000 dollar scanners. But read that information yourself. It is compelling. Made me think I should go out and get a large format camera for landscapes. But then again, not.
