Need help on Research paper

[moon36]

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]

unclear questions

 

[djacobox372]

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]

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

They don't.

 

[Josh66]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.