Should've invested in Kodak
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Want to hear something fun?
From last year to now, there's been a slight uptick in KODAK sales. This is almost entirely due to a weird resurgence of film photography driven by people on YouTube and Instagram; a lot of photography folk seem to like it, and it has these weird celebrity connections, too: Winona Rider, Jason Lee, and The Dude are all film/instant shooters. (Yeah, go figure). Film Ferrania has come back due to a crowdfunding campaign to buy back the freaking manufacturing plant. And Ilford HP5's making a comeback, too.
During the past five years, with all this renewed interest in film, KODAK did nothing to capitalize on it. Absolutely, completely nothing. When a documentary was made about today's film users and the YouTube accounts promoting it, the movie crew reached out to KODAK to talk about the resurgence. All they said was that they were really surprised and don't really know why people are interested.
They have absolutely no idea what's going on out there.
...but...KodakCoin!
-
Well, I went to school with the daughter of the owner of Zidell Steel. One of the richest families around here. Just trying to fit in with the who-you-know conversation which is of course so important for those on or near the Eastern Seaboard (<sarc, and not Ax of course). Actually, she was a very down to earth girl, we were friends, but not friendly enough that I was ever invited to their mansion. Poor me. So close to wealth, yet so out of reach.
Regarding Kodak, and what Aqua mentioned above. For those in the know (Mark?), if you took a picture using the best of the film technology, and a picture using the best of digital, could you tell the difference in the printed picture, or which is which?
Jon, do you really think Trump gives a shit about benefitting "one of his buddies" as the sole reason he makes a decision?
I would agree that I had hopes that Trump would do much more than he has in many respects. But, I've always figured making money is not his thing, or sending money to specific friends, as long as he is president. Frankly, I'd bet lots of his rich "friends" also dislike him, and he knows it.
-
@Rainman said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Regarding Kodak, and what Aqua mentioned above. For those in the know (Mark?), if you took a picture using the best of the film technology, and a picture using the best of digital, could you tell the difference in the printed picture, or which is which?
Don't even get me started on this.
It depends.
Zooming in enough on a digital file vs using a beast enough enlarger with film? Sure. Digital file using Canon color science vs a digital scan of Ektar 100? Yeah, you could tell. Guy who knows how to simulate Ektar in post vs a digital scan of Ektar 100? Highly doubt it if you zoomed in as much as you wanted. Printed out, without putting your face on the paper? No. No, you couldn't tell. At all.
But there's far, far more to it than that. Even discounting the differences between film and digital lenses, how you shoot film without a motor drive vs how you shoot digital is entirely different. Sure you can contrive to take identical shots, but in practice, you simply don't take the same kind of photos with a film camera vs digital. At all. Digital has IBIS, autofocus, 60 fps bursts, variable ISO, shot buffering, etc. etc. Film has none of those, which is not necessarily a disadvantage—it depends on what you're trying to do. Try taking street portraits with a Sony A7S Mark III and tell me how many takers you get. Now go out and try it with an 8x10. (Joel Meyerowitz changed from 35mm to 8x10 for exactly this reason. It very much mattered what he was using. It changed the photos because beyond the camera and film differences, it changed how people saw him, and how they interacted with the camera.)
-
Interesting, Aqua!
In audio the debate between digital and analog continues. I am one that finds a warmth in analog, whether vinyl recordings or tube amps. You didn't mention "warmth" but is that anywhere like what you are talking about in terms of the affective results between the formats?
-
@Rainman said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Jon, do you really think Trump gives a shit about benefitting "one of his buddies" as the sole reason he makes a decision?
Well, that was but one example I gave of how he might benefit himself.
But do you really think Trump hasn’t given us ample reason to worry about him self-dealing? Or giving his own electoral interests too much weight in making policy decisions?
-
@jon-nyc said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Am I the only one who was pleasantly surprised that this contract doesn’t benefit Trump personally in some obvious way?
Like, it’s not awarded to one of his buddy’s shell companies. It’s not even a swing state.
Have no idea what you just said.
-
@Rainman said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Interesting, Aqua!
In audio the debate between digital and analog continues. I am one that finds a warmth in analog, whether vinyl recordings or tube amps. You didn't mention "warmth" but is that anywhere like what you are talking about in terms of the affective results between the formats?
Post-processing cheats aside, yeah. Especially 35mm. (Not all film is in the form of 35mm of course, but that's the most popular.) I guess you could say that the grain in 35mm has a "warmth" to it. If used right, it can actually be a feature you'd seek out. In fact, many photo software packages allow you to simulate grain for this reason. Digital grain from your sensor, though? No, that looks like crap pretty much always. That's why they call it "noise" instead.
Film has a lot of potential imperfections to it that add to its "warmth" or "authenticity" or "uniqueness"—something like that anyway—whereas digital gets a bad rap for being too clean, cold, and unexpressive. Which isn't true (it has a lot more to do with your understanding of the tools you choose to use), but, haters gonna hate. Digital can be very expressive in ways film can't be, but the two are more different in that respect than I think a lot of folks realize.
I like film immensely but currently don't shoot with it. (It is what I learned on in high school, though.) I'd want to process it myself and even with a Paterson Tank, that would require a lifestyle change I'm not really ready for yet.
-
-
@89th said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Not that I shoot with film, but I can also imagine it really makes you appreciate each shutter.... whereas when I take a pic with even my iPhone (or DSLR) I take like 20 pics and then pick the best one.
Defo. That's why John Free (who's a wonderful nutter, by the way) always claims that if you want to get better with photography, take fewer pictures. It's a pithy statement, but he's only referring to being deliberate with your shutter.
-
-
@89th said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Back to the topic, Kodak shares are up like 2,000% in the last 3 days, including another 300% today. Bananas.
2,000%. Keep in mind a 10% return in a year is a decent year.
Maybe with all that extra bank they can bring back Kodachrome for shit's sake!!
-
@89th said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Back to the topic, Kodak shares are up like 2,000% in the last 3 days, including another 300% today. Bananas.
2,000%. Keep in mind a 10% return in a year is a decent year.
Aren't they still down from their high level from years ago? Have not they been decreasing for a number of years? LOL
-
@taiwan_girl said in Should've invested in Kodak:
@89th said in Should've invested in Kodak:
Back to the topic, Kodak shares are up like 2,000% in the last 3 days, including another 300% today. Bananas.
2,000%. Keep in mind a 10% return in a year is a decent year.
Aren't they still down from their high level from years ago? Have not they been decreasing for a number of years? LOL
They're a shell of their former selves, but they never fully went away, and prior to this huge jump, they had incremental quarterly increases for the past year. Lot of people are getting back into film.
