Kodak Ends Production of Acetate Base For Photographic Film 137
McGruber writes "According to a report by Rochester, NY CBS affiliate WROC Kodak has ended in-house production of the cellulose acetate base that is the primary component of photographic film. Popular Photography magazine adds that, for more than 100 years, Kodak has made the acetate in house in bulk, providing the structural basis for the company's film. Now, with Kodak in bankruptcy, the company is firing 60 workers and shutting down the acetate machinery. Citing the decline in interest in film photography as a primary cause, Kodak will no longer undertake the time intensive process of acetate production. Thankfully, the company has large stockpiles of the material, and once that runs out they will source it from elsewhere."
Don't worry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sad, but inevitable. (Score:5, Insightful)
Negative film has much superior exposure latitude to digital. There wasn't a need for HDR techniques with negative film - you could capture the dynamic range on the film. (Granted there were few ways to get all that range on paper, but there are now thanks to digital manipulation.)
Also, there's the issue of archivability. Black and white negative materials are inherently archival if processed at all well. Furthermore, this archivalness is passive, requiring little to no effort on the behalf of the photographer. Digital requires migration from device to device on a certain schedule, or data loss is inevitable. (Of course, if you do actually migrate it, you have a perfect copy of your data, but you actually have to do it.)
There are a lot of older technologies that have serious advantages over modern ones - I'm not a big fan of vinyl records (CD was more than good enough for me) but I buy CDs in preference to downloaded lossy formats, and even use fountain pens because of their superior anti-fatigue properties compared to ballpoint and gel pens (and their environmental superiority). Just because something is new doesn't mean it's better.
Re:Sad, but inevitable. (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed.
I still mainly shoot film, but I'm quite happy to shoot digital when needed (there's no denying the convenience, ability to work at low and high ISOs, and that the quality is good nowadays, particularly for full frame).
But I prefer the tonal reproduction of film (colour negative still handles highlights better than the top-of-the-range Nikon fullframes, having just recently used the D3 and D4 for a couple of weddings), the existence of only one artefact - which can be quite likeable, and much preferable to digital noise, and the spot-on colour accuracy.
I think the overall look with film is more realistic, objects have more depth. Digital gives a more controlled look, which looks like a painting of the scene. Film looks like the actual scene with a thin film of graininess in front of it.
(the problem is getting it processed and scanned somewhere good that will show the full qualities of the medium)