Kodak says film & services sinking faster than expected.

[Evan Kubota]

"I know I'm the only guy left saying this, but digital cameras are craziness. The only reason to use them is cost and convenience, all the worst reasons to ever do anything. Of course I don't eat fast food either so..."

This is kind of ridiculous. What if you want to put some pictures of something on a website? You can either shoot 35mm, wait to get the film processed, scan it, then put it online, or shoot it on a digital camera, upload to your computer, and put it up. It's absurd to claim that digital cameras are worthless, just as it would be absurd to claim that there was no place for 35mm. For many applications the convenience is great.

[mercyboy]

Try copying your old film without loosing any image info, or doing multiple location off-site storage with it.

Nonsense. You can scan your film at higher resolution than you'll get from your digital camera and store that offsite.

I know I'm the only guy left saying this, but digital cameras are craziness. The only reason to use them is cost and convenience, all the worst reasons to ever do anything. Of course I don't eat fast food either so...

Pah-lease! Data is lost any time scanning's done, regardless of the resolution. But if you're talking about englarding a 35mm frame compared to some thumbnail digital shot set at 72dpi, sure. Same basic principle behind scanning large vs. small format film. And saying "cost and convenience" is the worst reason to do something...well, gee, that basically defies the evolution of life as well as the history of image capturing. Why aren't you still using a pinhole camera???

[kentbulza]

Pah-lease! Data is lost any time scanning's done, regardless of the resolution.

Okay...but you're still left with more than get even with just a 35mm piece of film, which I consider small.

Why aren't you still using a pinhole camera???

Because it doesn't produce the best quality.

[kentbulza]

"I know I'm the only guy left saying this, but digital cameras are craziness. The only reason to use them is cost and convenience, all the worst reasons to ever do anything. Of course I don't eat fast food either so..."

This is kind of ridiculous. What if you want to put some pictures of something on a website? You can either shoot 35mm, wait to get the film processed, scan it, then put it online, or shoot it on a digital camera, upload to your computer, and put it up. It's absurd to claim that digital cameras are worthless, just as it would be absurd to claim that there was no place for 35mm. For many applications the convenience is great.

The newest Fuji developers have a scanner built in, so you get the scans at the same time as the film.

I said craziness. I don't take pictures I don't hope are beautiful. I'm not an insurance adjuster.

And I'll wait 3 hours for my film to process, thank you. I also don't use a microwave.

[mercyboy]

I also don't use a microwave.

Not even to defrost bagels before you toast them? That's about the only thing we use our micro for, but it's totally worth it. (Microwaves and their evolution are actually kind of like digital imaging equipment if you think about it......ah, nevermind!)

[kentbulza]

I also don't use a microwave.

Not even to defrost bagels before you toast them?!)

No...I get them at bakery, so they're not frozen. Maybe I'm the last person still doing that too.

[reflex]

The newest Fuji developers have a scanner built in, so you get the scans at the same time as the film.

No, the newest Fuji developers have a scanner built in so they can produce digital prints from your film. The scans they dump to CD as a "bonus" are usually absolute crap.

[Evan Kubota]

"No...I get them at bakery, so they're not frozen. Maybe I'm the last person still doing that too."

You mean you buy them pre-made? That's not the best quality. You really should make the dough from scratch each morning. Who cares if it takes more time? Convenience and cost are the worst reasons to do something.

While we're on the subject, you don't happen to have a stove or electric oven, I hope... building a fire each time you want to cook food yields a more authentic flavor

[kentbulza]

"You mean you buy them pre-made? That's not the best quality.

believe me...you wouldn't want to eat anything i made.

[kentbulza]

The newest Fuji developers have a scanner built in, so you get the scans at the same time as the film.

No, the newest Fuji developers have a scanner built in so they can produce digital prints from your film. The scans they dump to CD as a "bonus" are usually absolute crap.

I agree -- it was just in response to how hard it was to get the pictures up on the web. But I've got a roll of 120 film at the end I can scan and crop and blow up to a poster if I need to.

[camera_wizard]

I know I'm the only guy left saying this, but digital cameras are craziness.

Actually, you're wrong. I will add my opinion by saying that digital cameras are craziness too. After you pay $400 dollars for a digital camera and printer dock, at least $40 for a better memory card, and spend even more money on inkjet cartriges and photo paper, you could have taken so many pictures on 35mm film that the choice between digital or film is simply a question of which has more quality, film or digital?

The answer to that question is, of course, film. :!:

camera_wizard

[mercyboy]

Actually, you're wrong. .........and spend even more money on inkjet cartriges and photo paper, you could have taken so many pictures on 35mm film that the choice between digital or film is simply a question of which has more quality, film or digital?

The answer to that question is, of course, film. :!:

camera_wizard

Actually, you're wrong too. You conveniently forgot about how much it will cost to make several dozen prints of each photo, then buy stamps and spend the time creating and using a mailing list to send 1 copyof each to all of your relatives and friends. Digital, you just upload them and it's done at no extra cost.

[S8 Booster]

Actually, you're wrong. .........and spend even more money on inkjet cartriges and photo paper, you could have taken so many pictures on 35mm film that the choice between digital or film is simply a question of which has more quality, film or digital?

The answer to that question is, of course, film. :!:

camera_wizard

Actually, you're wrong too. You conveniently forgot about how much it will cost to make several dozen prints of each photo, then buy stamps and spend the time creating and using a mailing list to send 1 copyof each to all of your relatives and friends. Digital, you just upload them and it's done at no extra cost.

actually youre kind of wrong too: i may optionally order - in addtion to processing and paper prints directly from my lab - at a reasonable price - digital HQ scans of my 35mm negs which can be downloaded directly from the labs server before i get my prints back and/or on a CD with the prints. they allow me for free - a huge space on their server where i can keep all my albums n from which i can at any time order extra copies in seconds. if i have digital images in my mac i can upload them to the labs server/aløbums to get paper prints in usual enduring HQ photo paper n dye quality.

and, i have my negs as a backup. best kept in a fireproof safe or something of course. digital advantage: copies can be kept pon a varity of hds.

s

[chachi]

All I can say is at least I got to shoot some Super 8 before the ship sank.
I'm really gratefull for that fact alone.

Now, If I get to do that for a few more years, I'll be happier then a pig in poop. If not, I'll just go back to video from which I came!

[jpolzfuss]

that spiffy new digital camera will be worth $0 next year. ... They should talk about the fact that an inexpensive 1972 Nikon 35mm still takes better pictures than a $2000 digital camera.

Jeppp! And that's the whole reason why the industry wants us to switch to digital: A 2005 Nikon 35mm still doesn't take better pictures than the modell from 1972. So there's no need to get a new 35mm-camera unless you manage to damage or lose your old one. Hence that market is "dead".
But newer digital cameras will give better pictures than older ones - and when you want to be "up to date", you'll have to replace it every two or three years! Of course you can't re-use your old memory-sticks, PCMCIA-flash-ram, whatever - so you'll have to replace everything! You'll probably even need a new PC since your old camera was attached to your COM-port on your Win98SE-PC, while the newer ones are USB (and only come with WinXP-drivers), ... . In other words: Once the consumers got rid of their 35mm-cameras they'll have to buy, buy, buy.... and buy! And this'll continue at least until even the cheapest modells can take pictures at 10 or 20megapixels (without problems with the white-balancing, without problems due to inadequate lenses, without interpolation and without using a lossy format like JPEG)... (<- there are several webpages that claim that either 10 or 20 megapixels are needed to achive the same quality as with a 35mm-SLR-camera, hence I'm using this value as a "border")

Kodak DOES have a marketing department, right?

I think they've sold/out-sourced it in the 1980s ;)