Posted on 06/14/2013 4:25:51 AM PDT by Olog-hai
Eastman Kodak Co. says it’s ending in-house production of one of the key components of camera film and cutting 61 jobs. …
Kodak spokesman Christopher Veronda told the newspaper the company has an inventory of acetate base that’s expected to last years, and is looking at options for external supply beyond that. …
(Excerpt) Read more at bigstory.ap.org ...
Ping!
I bought a $1,200 Kodak camera back in the mid-1980s and still have it. The odds of film being available in twenty years? There might be a South Korean company around making it, but for developmental purposes....I don’t see any US company by 2025 that you can get your pictures made.
I would guess that black and white film and associated developing chemicals, print paper, and so on will continue to be available as art supplies.
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome,
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome,
Mama don’t take my Kodachrome away...
But probably at very high cost. I still have two excellent Canon AE cameras and all the lenses. They take beatiful pictures but the availability and cost of film and decent developing is going up.
Agreed. I think if you’re going to stick with film cameras, large-format is the way to go. The resolution of 120 roll-film and larger formats gives them reason to continue to exist.
Fuji film is a good substitute.
I haven’t used film for ten years (now shooting via Canon 60 D) but remember Fuji color seemed brighter than Kodak.
My one son’s girlfriend is (was, just graduated) a grad student in photography. She tells us that there are still sources for film.
Sigh. I still have my complete Pentax setup with auto winder, macro rings, several flashes and lenses...35mm fisheye, 55mm standard, 105mm & 135mm telephoto, 80-200mm zoom...and all the associated kit that goes with it. I should probably sell it before it is worthless.
It is almost too late, I sold my LX and ME Super setup a couple of years ago for a couple of hundred bucks and that was with several lenses and a Vivatar 285 flash...
Flip side if there is a camera you really wanted back in the day you can find it cheap..
My Dad worked for Polaroid for 40 years.He worked his heart out for that company and he was pretty well rewarded for that work.But the company started to fail a few years before he died.It broke his heart....kinda like how the guys responsible for building the WTC must have felt after 9/11.For years Polaroid bought chemicals from Kodak.They weren’t direct competitors so there was no reason not to have such a relationship.My Dad made many a trip to Rochester to meet with Kodak brass.It would break my Dad’s heart to see what’s happened to Kodak as well.
Back in “the day” I had a nice bag full of stuff that I lost through a divorce and only recently started buying some replacements on line. Sadly, I’ve purchased two AE bodies and a bunch of lenses for a song and a dance - it is hard to accept how much this stuff has lost in value over the years. If you are interested in parting ways with any of yours, I’d be happy to discuss it with you as I am going to be teaching my two young sons what “real” picture taking is all about and could use some quality equipment.
Polaroid failed because they couldn’t adapt ... their product sucked bigtime .. clarity was always poor and it deteriorated quickly ... Kodak could never innovate either ... when better film came out (agfa and Fuji) their response was to raise PRICES to give the image that they were better... when digital cameras became popular Kodak started their own line but it was always second rate at best... they’re toast... stick a fork in them they have a track record and will disappear... they’re not even the best at commercial B&W anymore , Agfa owns the X-Ray film market .. and that’s going digital as well.
“Kodachrome”
Now that is a blast from the past. They haven’t made the stuff in 4-5 years.
I used to help run the processor at a large photo plant. Process monitoring and control was a real pain.
Good riddance.
No,it didn't suck.It was well suited for the purpose for which it was intended.Polaroid cameras weren't meant to be used by Madison Avenue fashion photographers...it was meant for families who wanted quick,easy photos and businesses that needed the same.
...clarity was always poor and it deteriorated quickly
The clarity wasn't equal to that of 35mm but it was never intended to.As for deterioration...most of our family photos are on Polaroid film.There are many photos of my mother,sister and I that are 60 years old that are still perfect.There are pictures of my older brothers that are 65+ years ago that are a bit faded but still worthwhile.And these photos have been improperly stores (hot attucks,etc) for decades.
There are many photos of my mother,sister and I that are 60 years old that are still perfect.
***************************************
That would make the photo’s from the early 1950’s and they would have been taken on an original Polaroid camera such as a model 95a (I have one) which takes the ROLL type Black and White film that you had to “fix” with the chemical squeegee. The original B&W roll film was good (not great) ,, the color films (cartridge type) deteriorated in a matter of just a few years to the point where they were washed out and the colors bled into each other deteriorating the granularity.
As you noted it was SPEED and CONVENIENCE they were selling , not quality ... it was perfect for the insurance adjuster or the pro photographer that took a quick Polaroid to check his lighting. And YES the quality SUCKED.
Polaroid would have gone out of business a few years earlier if Kodak hadn’t made the mistake of infringing on their patents when they made the EK-6 instant camera and had to pay out a huge royalty fee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.