| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/26/2004 07:51:14 AM · #1 |
Eastman Kodak Co. cuts jobs, colleges close darkrooms as 35-mm cameras go the way of Latin
By KEITH DAMSELL AND PATRICK BRETHOUR
With a report from Reuters
The age of film is dead.
When Photo 123 Inc. dumped its 35-millimetre camera last year and went digital, the Toronto firm joined dozens of retailers, studios and campuses across the country that are closing darkrooms in favour of high-tech cameras and printers.
"Digital is easier to use. You can check while the customer is here if their eyes are open, if the smile is nice," said shop owner Bill Sherer.
The latest evidence of film's untimely death was provided yesterday by industry giant Eastman Kodak Co. The Rochester, N.Y., company will cut as many as 15,000 jobs worldwide to accelerate the painful shift away from the waning film photography market. The company will no longer sell traditional film cameras in North America.
The impact on Canadian operations is unknown. Kodak Canada Inc. employs 1,100 and the bulk of manufacturing employees work on digital-imaging products.
Kodak has come late to the digital party. Consumer demand for digital cameras has hurt the company's biggest source of revenue, traditional consumer film sales. Last year, for the first time, sales of digital cameras overtook film cameras in the United States.
Film development via the darkroom and a vat of chemicals "is on its way out in the same way as analog recording on magnetic tape doesn't happen any more," said Duncan McKie, president of Pollara Inc. In a recent survey, the Toronto market research firm found that more than 25 per cent of Canadian homes have still digital cameras, double the market penetration in 2002.
And corporations that fail to embrace the digital age may find themselves in trouble.
"It's a very serious threat. It's a risk to your survival if you don't adapt," said Lewis Ritchie, chief financial officer of Cinram International Inc. The Toronto manufacturer has a knack for adapting technologies at the right time. It shifted production from vinyl records to cassette tapes in the 1970s and then, in the late 1980s, to CDs. The company began making DVDs in 1997. The popular format now makes up more than 50 per cent of the company's annual sales.
In the photography industry, increasingly powerful computers are boosting the performance of digital cameras while dramatically cutting the costs to consumers. An entry-level digital camera and printer can be bought for as little as $200. Only two years ago, a camera with the same capabilities would have cost about $500.
Darkrooms are being shuttered not only in stores but also at campuses across the country.
The Alberta College of Art & Design in Calgary plans to dispose of the extensive darkroom facilities for its design courses by the fall of next year, replacing the whiff of caustic chemicals with the whir of high-powered computers.
Loyalist College in Belleville, Ont., has made even bigger strides toward the digital future. The college, with a high-profile photojournalism program, has already scrapped one of its two darkrooms and replaced it with a computer lab. Digital equipment will be mandatory for any new students entering the program, and the century-old skills of using chemicals to develop film and fix prints will become historical relics -- the photographic equivalent of a dead language.
"It's a little bit like Latin," said Frank O'Connor, co-ordinator of photojournalism at Loyalist. He said a small darkroom will remain to print archival photos.
At Ryerson University in Toronto, the decision to continue teaching both traditional darkroom and digital skills is more of a practical matter. Ryerson, with an extensive photography program, has nevertheless significantly reduced the number of darkrooms it operates, to 15 from 25.
But the day of the mechanical shutter has not entirely ended. Art schools are steadfast holdouts when it comes to digital.
Pixels are not art, it seems. "The thought of abandoning traditional technology is so far away from the plate here," said Chris Tyrell of the Emily Carr Institute of Art and Design in Vancouver.
Mr. Tyrell, who used to run an art gallery, said he questions the durability of digital prints -- not to mention their aesthetics. "I'd show one before I'd buy one."
Shipment snapshot
Worldwide shipments of digital still cameras for the last three years and a forecast for 2004.
Year: Number (millions)
2001: 16.1
2002: 28.0
2003: 43.4
2004: 55.2
SOURCE: IDC (INTERNATIONAL DATA CORP)
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 09:01:53 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by Morgan:
Mr. Tyrell, who used to run an art gallery, said he questions the durability of digital prints -- not to mention their aesthetics. "I'd show one before I'd buy one." |
I read this story in the news a few days ago too. The part about the print durability is going to be a key issue. I think some of the current printing technologies have reasonable durability.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 01:10:18 PM · #3 |
I don't think any of the current printing technologies have anything close to the durability of photographic prints -- to young people today, claims that they will last 30 years (or even a hundred) seems like a long time, but it's nothing in terms of archiving.
Those numbers at the end could be misleading (either way) depending on whether or not they include camera-phones. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 01:17:49 PM · #4 |
The camera phones market is even bigger.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 01:51:56 PM · #5 |
The question of print durability must also include the question of what the print represents. With traditional processing, the print is the artwork. the printing process is where much of the magic takes place, e.g. the dodging/burning, etc.
In the digital darkroom, the source file is a finished artwork, the print merely a represenation (and certainly not the only possible representation) thereof. What this says to me is that the ultimate longevity of a print of a given work is not as much an issue, since it can be reprinted at will.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 01:55:05 PM · #6 |
then the question is in 100 years will computers at that time still be able to read the archived file...
Message edited by author 2004-01-26 13:55:27.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 02:23:43 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by soup:
then the question is in 100 years will computers at that time still be able to read the archived file... |
The other problem is images will get lost, even if the data is renewed to newer media. And browsing through a box of CDs for old family photos is harder than looking through a shoebox of prints. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 02:28:23 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't think any of the current printing technologies have anything close to the durability of photographic prints -- to young people today, claims that they will last 30 years (or even a hundred) seems like a long time, but it's nothing in terms of archiving.
Those numbers at the end could be misleading (either way) depending on whether or not they include camera-phones. |
Some of the affordable, pigment based Epson inkjet technologies have rated (proven in accelerated tests against the best film technologies) lifespans of over 200 years. This is double the best archival films can achieve.
The dye based stuff that people use at home is about as equivalently good as the pictures developed at a 1 hour photo place - may be good for about a year or two before fading. I wouldn't buy or sell anything from walmart or my dye based inkjet printer - just for those reasons.
But the archival Epson inks, on decent paper, stored correctly should outlast film. (and before we get random comments about 'this cant be proven because digital hasn't been around long enough - neither has film...)
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 02:29:20 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by soup:
then the question is in 100 years will computers at that time still be able to read the archived file... |
The other problem is images will get lost, even if the data is renewed to newer media. And browsing through a box of CDs for old family photos is harder than looking through a shoebox of prints. |
That's why I print out the good family photos, and stick them in an album.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 02:41:28 PM · #10 |
Precisely why the Epson 2200 photo was my printer choice. It was tough to part with the additional $ for the 2200, but when put into perspective, it made the most sense.
Message edited by author 2004-01-26 14:42:09.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 03:28:48 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Some of the affordable, pigment based Epson inkjet technologies have rated (proven in accelerated tests against the best film technologies) lifespans of over 200 years. This is double the best archival films can achieve.
But the archival Epson inks, on decent paper, stored correctly should outlast film. (and before we get random comments about 'this cant be proven because digital hasn't been around long enough - neither has film...) |
That's good news, although I have an inherent skepticism about accelerated aging tests -- I realize we don't have a better alternative right now. I never get any home pinters to look any good, though.
Do you know anything about the Xerox/Tektronix Phaser line of printers? They use some kind of wax-based inks, I believe. I should have one available to me at work soon. |
|
|
|
01/26/2004 03:53:29 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Some of the affordable, pigment based Epson inkjet technologies have rated (proven in accelerated tests against the best film technologies) lifespans of over 200 years. This is double the best archival films can achieve.
But the archival Epson inks, on decent paper, stored correctly should outlast film. (and before we get random comments about 'this cant be proven because digital hasn't been around long enough - neither has film...) |
That's good news, although I have an inherent skepticism about accelerated aging tests -- I realize we don't have a better alternative right now. I never get any home pinters to look any good, though.
Do you know anything about the Xerox/Tektronix Phaser line of printers? They use some kind of wax-based inks, I believe. I should have one available to me at work soon. |
I have one of the Xerox (ex-Tektronix Phaser) printers in the office on the network. It is OK for work images and PowerPoint presentation printouts, but it is not a very high-end image printer. Often, the image smears if you have hot sweaty hands, as I sometimes do and it is a frustration.
My dye sublimation printer is a wonderful (Olympus P400) alternative and I understand that they have a newer model out. The Epson 2200 is a bit too subdued in the chroma aspects for my taste, but the new 4000 is much better. Fuji is still the king with their hybrid process (commercial grade) printer.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 04:05:49 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That's good news, although I have an inherent skepticism about accelerated aging tests -- I realize we don't have a better alternative right now. I never get any home pinters to look any good, though.
|
I have some doubts about accelerated aging, but there isn't anything better for film or digital media right now. I get shockingly good results from my home printer (they keep freaking out professional printers because they can't believe I'm getting them from a $50 Epson printer.
The secrets are good paper (I use Epson colorlife - its about $1 per letter sized sheet) good profiles (for the printer/ ink & paper you are using) and correct software settings.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 05:01:40 PM · #14 |
i have good luck on my epson, but have no idea how long the ink will last before fading.
|
|
|
|
01/26/2004 08:36:43 PM · #15 |
I think the Reuters article overstates things a bit. The Kodak press release is admittedly written with Kodak stock holders in mind, but it makes it clear that film is far from dead. The 35 mm film industry is growing quickly in many world markets, and Kodak will continue to support them. And in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe where digital is becoming more popular, there will still be a large demand for one-time use cameras and film for those who can't afford digital cameras. The hundreds of one-hour photo shops will still have plenty of business (although most are prudently expanding to offer digital photo printing services as well).
But it is certainly true that most commercial photography in western countries is becoming digital. It is a lot easier, faster, cheaper, and more flexible. Longevity isn't an issue for commercial applications, where the output is either online or printed using conventional methods like printing presses. Most commercial use of ink jet printers is for theme parks and the like where they take your picture as you come in and try to sell it to you as a souvenir; and they don't really care about longevity. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/09/2025 12:11:44 PM EDT.
