Well, they did .... :mad:
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1701706 (http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&sid=1701706)
ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) - Sorry, Paul Simon, Kodak is taking your Kodachrome away.
The Eastman Kodak Co. announced Monday it's retiring its most senior film because of declining customer demand in an increasingly digital age.
Now just try to get that song out of your head.
Yeah, it's an earworm, all right. But I didn't get it from you, Ex. I heard the story on All Things Considered on my way home this evening, and have been singing "Ko-da-chro-o-ome!" ever since.
Eventually progress demands recognition, and I suppose this is a case in point. We don't use copper plating anymore in photography, and for a reason. It kills people, is toxic, and new technology was able to produce higher quality photographs; just as in this case.
I still would rather use one of my SLR cameras instead of the digital ones, but the digital cameras are just so darned easy to use and the process of producing pictures is as well. . . Kind of makes me feel like a cave man when I use an SLR.
:spooked: Hey, who's the hairy dude hanging around outside my cube with a club ion his hands? :spooked:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 24, 2009, 08:27:38 AM
I still would rather use one of my SLR cameras instead of the digital ones, but the digital cameras are just so darned easy to use and the process of producing pictures is as well. . . Kind of makes me feel like a cave man when I use an SLR.
I had a friend with this same sentiment and he had some explanation about the grain of the film, blah, blah, blah. Apparently he's unaware that unless he plans on developing and printing his pictures himself, it's almost impossible to find a lab in which digitization of the image doesn't occur in the enlargement process anyway so that argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. After years and years shooting with Nikon SLR's, I made the jump to a Nikon D-SLR and never looked back. The only thing I found I couldn't do with the digital that I could with a film camera was color infrared so I kept my trusty N90 around for a while but I played with that so infrequently that I eventually let it go as well. With the digital, black and white infrared is amazing...
(http://keithgrossman.com/images/ir1.jpg)
Quote from: Palehorse on June 24, 2009, 08:27:38 AM
:spooked: Hey, who's the hairy dude hanging around outside my cube with a club ion his hands? :spooked:
It's the guy from Geico. :biggrin:
Quote from: Exterminator on June 24, 2009, 09:03:35 AM
I had a friend with this same sentiment and he had some explanation about the grain of the film, blah, blah, blah. Apparently he's unaware that unless he plans on developing and printing his pictures himself, it's almost impossible to find a lab in which digitization of the image doesn't occur in the enlargement process anyway so that argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny. After years and years shooting with Nikon SLR's, I made the jump to a Nikon D-SLR and never looked back. The only thing I found I couldn't do with the digital that I could with a film camera was color infrared so I kept my trusty N90 around for a while but I played with that so infrequently that I eventually let it go as well. With the digital, black and white infrared is amazing...
Yeah, it's hard to use the "artist" excuse anymore that is for sure. To tell the truth the only thing keeping me from ditching my SLR's is the high price of a nice 10MP or higher version of them right now. While it is coming down it is still a bit too salty for me.
I do like the convenience of digital though and there's no arguing with that. Cuts the labs right out of the picture completely if you have a large format printer, and you can buy software with special effects that will do just about anything.
I'm just glad I never went out and bought the equipment to do my own. I was close to doing so several times over the past few years and just couldn't justify it; even with my event photography side line / hobby. And when I started having everything put onto CD and began printing - editing my pictures at home on the computer it pretty much cut the local labs out completely for enlargements and reprints. (Right now I don't even have enough spare time to do any of it so. . .)
Love that picture of yours Ex! That is a
really beautiful shot! :yes:
I've got some similar type pics from some of my coursework in school somewhere at home. They're in the stack of pics I have yet to scan into the computer though. . . :rolleyes:
I've got some of my pics on a flash drive and can carry them anywhere. (Mostly construction pictures of our house being built.) Try that with traditional format! :biggrin:
Quote from: Palehorse on June 24, 2009, 09:23:23 AM
Yeah, it's hard to use the "artist" excuse anymore that is for sure. To tell the truth the only thing keeping me from ditching my SLR's is the high price of a nice 10MP or higher version of them right now. While it is coming down it is still a bit too salty for me.
Coming down? Heck, they've fallen dramatically. When I bought my D70, I had to call all over just to find one and then paid $1,000.00 for the body at Jack's...they're easily less than half that now and the D50 is even cheaper!
A word of caution...don't get caught up in the megapixel hype; it is nothing but marketing for unwary consumers. Stuffing more, smaller sensors into a smaller space does not increase quality. When I bought my D70, it had a 4.6 megapixel rating but the image quality was far better than anything that could be produced by a point and shoot 8 megapixel camera. Fewer, larger, better quality sensors on a larger chip produce a superior image to more, smaller, lower quality sensors on a smaller chip. Google 'megapixel hype' to learn more.
Another cool advantage to a D-SLR is that your telephot lenses gain about 50% in focal length because the chip is about that much smaller than a 35mm frame. A 135mm lens, for example, has an effective focal length of 205mm on a D-SLR.
Quote from: Exterminator on June 24, 2009, 10:00:42 AM
Coming down? Heck, they've fallen dramatically. When I bought my D70, I had to call all over just to find one and then paid $1,000.00 for the body at Jack's...they're easily less than half that now and the D50 is even cheaper!
A word of caution...don't get caught up in the megapixel hype; it is nothing but marketing for unwary consumers. Stuffing more, smaller sensors into a smaller space does not increase quality. When I bought my D70, it had a 4.6 megapixel rating but the image quality was far better than anything that could be produced by a point and shoot 8 megapixel camera. Fewer, larger, better quality sensors on a larger chip produce a superior image to more, smaller, lower quality sensors on a smaller chip. Google 'megapixel hype' to learn more.
Another cool advantage to a D-SLR is that your telephot lenses gain about 50% in focal length because the chip is about that much smaller than a 35mm frame. A 135mm lens, for example, has an effective focal length of 205mm on a D-SLR.
At the moment the need for personal fiscal responsibility driven by the economic downturn demands I pur off any unnecessary expenditures, but you can believe a high quality digital is at the top of the wish list for me personally. :'(
I've encountered issues during enlargement with some of the lower MP models, but as you allude to, need to do a lot more research surrounding this. . . I count a Canon 8MP among the "point and shoot" models I already own, and have found it to be a very versatile and reliable camera that provides fairly decent quality pictures suitable for enlargement. (If you saw my pictures of the last lunar eclipse, those were taken with this camera).
Quote from: Palehorse on June 24, 2009, 10:59:38 AM
At the moment the need for personal fiscal responsibility driven by the economic downturn demands I pur off any unnecessary expenditures, but you can believe a high quality digital is at the top of the wish list for me personally. :'(
Understood but you don't need to spend a lot of money to get a really good digital SLR any more...especially if you'll settle for a gently used camera.
QuoteI've encountered issues during enlargement with some of the lower MP models, but as you allude to, need to do a lot more research surrounding this. . .
I understand but that wasn't primarily as much a function of the number of megapixels as it was the overall quality of the image, especially if you shoot in raw format instead of .jpg.