[byrt_001]

hi everyone

have you seen this post in dpreview and front page in shuttertalk?

"Nikon UK has made an interesting announcement titled 'Nikon prepares to strengthen digital line-up for 2006' that signals the beginning of the end of nearly 60 years of Nikon fllm cameras. Nikon Corp has made the decision to 'focus management resources' on digital cameras in place of film cameras, and is discontinuing most film camera bodies, manual focus lenses and accessories, and all large format and enlarging lenses. In Europe only the flagship F6 film camera will remain on sale."

this is the link: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/060112...n_news.asp

goooshhhh can not believe it

can u


christian

[shuttertalk]

Yeah, sad isn't it? I guess it reflects the changing times.

In a few months, one should be able to snap up some bargains on ebay!!

[adam]

And kodak not making the film cameras..!
and lomo stopping production of the LC-A

ooo

Adam was here 2006!

[shuttertalk]

Hey good news - at least one manfacturer is staying in the film business...
http://home.fujifilm.com/news/n060119_2.html

Silver halide photography, which is fundamental to photography, has advantages over digital in such areas as power of expression, long term storage capability, reasonable prices, easy handling and a highly established and convenient photo development and print infrastructure.

We intend to continue our silver halide photography business and to further cultivate the culture of photography, and in so doing, continue to support our customers and retailers and all those who enjoy photography.

[Kombisaurus]

Film... Reasonable prices? Easy handling? Convenient? :o :o

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see the demise of film any more than anyone else. I think it is a vital part of the culture of photography and it's really sad to see it being tossed aside by many like yesterday's garbage just because digital has become the NBT ("next big thing").
Like vinyl records, film photos infuse their unique character into their images. There is often more to particular media than just the technology behind it or the search for a "perfect" reproduction method.

But really.. what drugs are Fuji on?? They're trying to convince us that film is more convenient to "develop" than digital? umm.. And film is "easier to handle" than memory cards? (ever seen a memory card with a used-by date that you need to keep in the fridge and not put through x-ray machines at airports?) And while film camera bodies are certainly cheaper, I could almost buy a 1Ds Mk2 for what it would've cost to develop all the shots I took last year (well over 20,000) but instead my "development" costs were $0, and printing costs minimal. And I didn't have to waste time and petrol money driving to and from a lab. Even if you don't use a PC but still go to the lab and plug your memory card into a kiosk.. it is MUCH cheaper, easier, and more convenient to "develop" and print digital than film.

After reading those claims I started reading the rest of that Fuji press release with a much more critical eye.
And then I read the following sentence neatly tucked away:
"In order to respond these difficult market changes, we are currently proceeding with comprehensive structural reforms."

Ah ha! So in other words, like Nikon, Fuji are re-structuring their organisation to cater for the fact that the vast majority of their business will be digital and not film, but they still want to appear to retain their integrity and seem like they aren't abandoning all their film customers. And who knows, maybe instead of dropping 95% of their film-based stuff they might only reduce it by 75%... thereby not abandoning the film shooters as much as some other companies.

But still... I'm certain that Fuji news story is just an announcement that they intend to drastically cut their film-based products, but the "good news" is that they won't get rid of them altogether. :/
Don't you love spin doctors?

[shuttertalk]

The feeling is definitely changing, but I think some wedding photogs still don't trust digital - they would rather have film and such. Plus, medium format is still primarly a film business.

I still have an affinity for film, probably because that's how I learnt photography, and I consider that my "roots". I was just speaking with a friend regarding film photography, and he commented that since moving to digital, he's become more careless in his shots. To some degree I would agree with him. Back in the film days, every shot cost money and so I was more inclined to make every shot count. These days I sometimes feel like a Japanese tourist, snapping away like I don't have a care in the world -- probably because I don't! I just delete the ones I don't like and it doesn't cost me anything. I can also photoshop the so so ones and turn them into a masterpiece.

*ducks and waits for flames*...

[matthew]

I was just speaking with a friend regarding film photography, and he commented that since moving to digital, he's become more careless in his shots. To some degree I would agree with him. Back in the film days, every shot cost money and so I was more inclined to make every shot count.

Back in the film days, I made every shot count, too - I'd develop only two or three rolls a year. Nothing was important enough to make me press the shutter and spend a dollar for an image that probably wouldn't be any good, anyway.

I'm a photographer today because of my little digital Elph (Canon S400). It took more photos in its first hour than my APS Elph/Ixus took in the previous year. Now, with digital, I don't need to worry and freely take those insignificant photos that aren't any good.

I agree that no-cost digital has increased people's tendency to take masses of frames and rely on luck. (A pair of film photographers I know were impressed by my E-1's 3FPS motor drive.) But, it remains true that the more skill people have, the luckier they get.

...My camera club is considering the possibility that in the next year or two, they will not accept photographs on slides. All contest and clinic submissions will be by digital submission only. Those still shooting film generally get their slides scanned instead of mounted, anyway.

[Toad]

But really.. what drugs are Fuji on?? They're trying to convince us that film is more convenient to "develop" than digital?

I understand what you are saying - and that certainly is not the case for most of us. However, my parents and even my wife, are totally bamboozled by the idea of moving the photos from camera to PC and then somehow turning those into prints. So for them, film is definately easier - they just give the roll of film to someone else to handle. For them, there is no comparison between film and digital for convenience - all they want is a handful of prints - which strangley enough is just about the hardest thing to do with digital.

Admittedly, you can do the same thing with a memory card in some places, but that leaves your camera unable to take photos - unless you have multiple cards - just another point against digital in the eyes of the computer unfriendly.

[shuttertalk]

My wife still uses a film compact... I guess it's the convenience factor. Then again, I think she's finding it less and less convenient because she doesn't take many photos and has to wait until the roll fills up before developing it.

The other day she expressed interest in a digital camera...


p.s. I'm thinking maybe an Olympus Stylus/Mju 600 - it's compact, all weather and has some advanced features such as aperture/shutter prioirty. Seems to have some good feedback too.