plasticman Posted January 19, 2012 Share #81 Â Posted January 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) For all you film guys, even though I shoot digitally these days I genuinely hope that something gets sorted out. Whether that's floating off the division as a separate company, or selling it, probably doesn't really matter as long as it has a future of some kind. Â I hope so too - but I'm afraid it isn't going to happen. Kodak management are on a mission to become the perfect disaster-model for future business school students to study, and nothing can deter them from utter self-destruction as quickly as they possibly can. Â Not sure how much more space there is in my freezer for more Portra - guess I can throw out some peas or something... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 19, 2012 Posted January 19, 2012 Hi plasticman, Take a look here kodak bankruptcy. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
delander †Posted January 19, 2012 Share #82  Posted January 19, 2012 Kodak sold off their sensor manufacturing plants, however they structure the company surely there will be a buyer for the film manufacturing plants? I'm sure B&W will continue but not so sure about colour.  Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 19, 2012 Share #83 Â Posted January 19, 2012 Jeff, the problem may be that there is overcapacity in the film production market. I'd certainly expect someone to pick up at least some of the emulsions such as Tri-x, or buy the Kodak brand name and continue to sell some of the existing films under the Kodak name. Â Ilford tri-x? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander †Posted January 19, 2012 Share #84  Posted January 19, 2012 You may be right Steve, the Kodak plants might well be too big for the future, so selling the brand names and manufacturing rights/technology would be an alternative. Ilford tri-X? I've been using HP5 recently.  I dont know how many holiday snaps are still taken with film but it is surely a rapidly dyeing market. Students are still discovering film and it is great that colleges and universities still teach film.  I watched the Rankin Life programme again a couple of nights ago and it was interesting to see the old timers using their M film cameras whilst Rankin came fully equipped with a S2 and a lighting assistant.  And we must get rid of this awful word 'analog(ue)' when referring to film.  Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 19, 2012 Share #85 Â Posted January 19, 2012 it is great that colleges and universities still teach film. I've come across this too (college's re-equipping darkrooms for example) but whilst I have no wish to see film die off completely, I am somewhat puzzled as to why teaching film darkroom work should be considered as a viable part of photography courses in today's cash strapped world. Â Perhaps whatever entity appears from Kodak's film production facilities will become similar to Ilford in a new guise? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander †Posted January 19, 2012 Share #86  Posted January 19, 2012 I've come across this too (college's re-equipping darkrooms for example) but whilst I have no wish to see film die off completely, I am somewhat puzzled as to why teaching film darkroom work should be considered as a viable part of photography courses in today's cash strapped world. Perhaps whatever entity appears from Kodak's film production facilities will become similar to Ilford in a new guise?  With regard to teaching film, It surely remains an essential part of learning photography?  Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 19, 2012 Share #87  Posted January 19, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some Kodak photographs...  Eastman Kodak: 130 years of history – in pictures | Business | guardian.co.uk  The final one of a near empty booth at this years CES says it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 19, 2012 Share #88  Posted January 19, 2012 With regard to teaching film, It surely remains an essential part of learning photography? Jeff Well, I do know one or two (pro) photographers who still use film (or at least, one semi-pro thinking about it) but they are now in the real minority. To answer your question, in all honesty, no, I don't think it is an essential part of learning photography today. Knowing about film based photography and how we arrived at where we are today is useful but as part of any full-time photography course I do not think that the practical side is particularly relevant anymore except for specialist cases. I can see courses in film based photography being viable in themselves but I don't see it fitting in alongside digital photography - my opinion I hasten to add, and no I'm not getting into a debate, I am as I said, just somewhat puzzled/bemused by the idea that film is still sufficiently viable to be included in full-time courses when all the evidence points otherwise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted January 19, 2012 Share #89 Â Posted January 19, 2012 I am somewhat puzzled as to why teaching film darkroom work should be considered as a viable part of photography courses in today's cash strapped world. Â I guess it depends upon whether you think a degree course in photography should be about broadening horizons (being partly about exploring different means of photographic expression) or whether it should be strictly vocational. If the latter, the courses might as well also teach how to serve drinks in a bar or sign on the dole. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 19, 2012 Share #90 Â Posted January 19, 2012 If the latter, the courses might as well also teach how to serve drinks in a bar or sign on the dole. The latter and such courses should send people out into the real world equipped to compete in it. When I studied photography there was a great deal of superfluous garbage added to the course to 'sciencify' it, something which I have always thought of as a waste of my time, time that I could have spent more productively. In an ideal world I would agree fully about the concept of broadening horizons but in a world which is less than ideal, then avoiding having to serve drinks and sign on requires as usable understanding of your intended profession as is possible. Film is already a small part of photography (and don't think that I do not appreciate film and darkroom - one of the great wonders of photography to me was watching a print appear in the developing tray, which I would say is infinitely more interesting than watching one appear bit by bit from a printer) and sadly I see it as a peripheral part of photography today and of diminishing consequence in the real world of pro photography. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Pedley Posted January 19, 2012 Share #91 Â Posted January 19, 2012 Depending on what type of bankruptcy, it is unlikely Kodak goes out of business. Just a reorganization of debt. Didn't Ilford go through bankruptcy? Â They just filed for bankruptcy protection. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted January 19, 2012 Share #92 Â Posted January 19, 2012 I posted this TOP link in another related thread. Interesting perspective on Kodak, including the discussion under featured comments. No attempt to predict the future (thankfully); this is more about how they got to this point. Â Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandro Posted January 19, 2012 Share #93 Â Posted January 19, 2012 Photography on film is part of the history of photography, and should therefor deserve a place in the teaching of photography. Especcially since it is a kind of photography that can still be learned and practised! And remember that painting didn't become obsolete when photography was invented, nor did modern tools replace the actual sculpting as an artform, by hand and in wood or stone, to mention a few examples. Photography on film helps young students in their choices and their awareness to develop their photographic minds. Lex Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 19, 2012 Share #94  Posted January 19, 2012 With regard to teaching film, It surely remains an essential part of learning photography? Jeff  Not in most large photo schools. Especially if the students are planning to be working photographers and not starving artists. My educational and professional background is in film but I don't see any requirement or advantage to know about film and processing for a photographer today.  All of my "experience' with alternative processes etc. was interesting but I don't think helps to pay the bills today. My main emphasis starting around 1994 was to educate myself in all aspects of digital photography. Surely some of what I already knew from film technology, color temperature, color printing, etc. was a help in the transition. But I could have learned that quicker and more easily via digital photography at much lower cost too.  Today, being good at marketing is THE most important aspect of professional photography if you want to make a decent living in this very competitive business. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 20, 2012 Share #95  Posted January 20, 2012 Yes  And we must get rid of this awful word 'analog(ue)' when referring to film.  Jeff  Yes, especially since a sensor pixel is an analogue device... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 20, 2012 Share #96 Â Posted January 20, 2012 I was looking at Salgado's great book Workers today ... it was completed in the early 1990's and supported by Kodak. Such a different time! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted January 20, 2012 Share #97 Â Posted January 20, 2012 I would like to think film should be taught as part of a (comprehensive) photography course as its part of photography (albeit it a niche these days). I think the best art schools teach technique over contemporary art theory. Better to learn the ropes- and then break free- than to be caught up in the latest trend with no overview or sense of history... Using film camera takes photography back to basics and would no doubt help to shoot better digital. In my opinion. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted January 20, 2012 Share #98 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Film is still alive and well in universities teaching fine art photography, and indeed in fine art practice itself. Â There's about 30 of us on the MA degree (years 1 and 2) at Brighton University, and most of us use film and digital, and a few film only. Â The dark room is huge - bigger than my flat, and the department has just bought extra film equipment, including Hassleblads. Â So, film may be pretty dead in commercial photography, but it's still very important in art photography. Â I hope you also have access to view cameras. I bet most of these students plan to teach photography. And countless schools have expanded to offer all kinds of programs in fine art and commercial photography. If this was being done by Wall Street, it would be shut down as some kind of pyramid scheme. But I guess if no real promises are made, it is OK. Â Look at what happened at Brooks Institute which is kind of a vocational photo school: Â http://www.topix.com/forum/com/ceco/T3N5RPGPBKTKE1C4Q Â Back in the 70s I was an exchange student at the Polytechnic of Central London (now University of Westminster) and I believe this was the only school in Great Britain that offered a degree in photography at that time. They accepted about 30 students each year into the film and still courses because being government subsidized, they didn't feel that the country needed to teach more photographers and film-makers than that number. As it was most didn't make a career in the business. Â Maybe if the entire world puts about 10% of all of its grad students into schools studying fine art traditional film photography, it will have some effect on Kodak's bottom line. But what would we do with all of these people and their MFAs in photography? Build more schools? Â Back to the subject. Anyway you slice it up, the days of Kodak being a photography company are pretty much over. Â Considering that carbro, dye transfer, Kodachrome, and many other materials are no longer available, I don't see how anyone can comprehensively teach this subject in a hands on way. I guess I was one of the last groups in school to actually work with a great variety of processes. That may have given me a wide view of the history and made me a versatile technician but I don't think it made me a better photographer. I have plenty of very successful and creative photographer friends who have no such background... many have never even been in a darkroom. I do think having digital technology at my disposal has contributed to stepping up my game. Â Back to the topic. Anyway you slice them up, the days of Kodak being a significant photographic company are pretty much over. Commercial printing and packaging is their future... succeed or fail with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest srheker Posted January 20, 2012 Share #99  Posted January 20, 2012 The message from Kodak is quite clear:  The film divison is still profitable and as long as enough people will buy it, they won't cease porduction. So let's hope that we photographers will buy enough, as the movie industry is more and more turning towards digital.  By the way: Isn't it kind of tragic that the film division is still profitable and all the fields where they tried to expand into the digital world failed?   "Film division is still profitable," says Kodak  Kodak has reaffirmed that film remains a profitable business for the company, a day after it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection Hours after Kodak announced it was seeking bankruptcy protection, the Rochester-based imaging company was quick to reaffirm that its film division will survive the company's restructuring as long as it remains profitable.  "Film (still and cinema) remains a profitable business for Kodak, and we have the broadest and most respected portfolio of films in both segments," Audrey Jonckheer, Kodak's worldwide director of marketing and public relations, tells BJP. "We have taken steps to sustain the business as it has declined, and we know that there are hundreds of passionate fans of film for the artistic and quality reasons they cite."   British Journal of Photography  "Film division is still profitable," says Kodak - British Journal of Photography Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 20, 2012 Share #100 Â Posted January 20, 2012 Back in the 70s I was an exchange student at the Polytechnic of Central London (now University of Westminster) and I believe this was the only school in Great Britain that offered a degree in photography at that time. We must have just missed each other..... (actually there were one or two others I seem to remember). Â But as I said earlier, a lot of superfluous and irrelevant coursework even so - although that said at least one of my contemporaries is a leading lens designer so perhaps not entirely irrelevant to everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.