Are there any sites that will say when 35mm film will be discontinued?

[Deja Q]

Kodak is jumping ship - not that I min as their latter-year products are crap anyway, but how long before digital takes over completely?

(I just bought a $140 flash unit for my film camera but if 35mm is going the way of the dodo in the next 18 months then I may as well save up for a proper camera; $3000+. x( :grr: :mad: :banghead: :hurts: )

[vi5]

1. I don't think it will ever go away completely...

Just harder to find. There are still places that process super 8 movies. And you can still actually find cassettes at some places. 35 mm will linger on for quite some time.

Kodak is getting out of that business? Just cameras or processing and everything?

[Deja Q]

2. They've lately dropped proper b/w photo paper... but

my developer did say that, in the next couple of years, they are going out of film entirely.

Nobody new is entering the film market, and fuji currently delivers better products. But for how long? :D

They'll continue to be a brand name and probably market digital cameras, but I wouldn't buy.

Good to know 35mm will be around for a while. Maybe in 2 years I can afford a model that surpasses film. But prosumer-quality/priced digital is just not available yet. 6000x4000 resolution (24MP; current D-SLRs in a near-proper price range offer 3000x2000 (6MP) and image quality, while nearly noise-free, lacks the shadow detail gamut that I prefer in film. But one day I will switch...

[liberal N proud]

3. Kodak is not going to make 35MM cameras I don't think they are ending

the film business.
They did stop making b/w paper.
Did you know that when you have your film processed 99.9% is converted to digital format before printing? Because of that the B/W images can be processed on the same paper as the color images.

Story about Kodak and 35MM cameras.

Kodak gives film cameras heave-ho
By Jefferson Graham, USA TODAY
In another shift away from its film business and toward the future of digital technologies, Eastman Kodak (EK) said Tuesday it will stop selling traditional film cameras in the USA, Canada and Western Europe.
Kodak will continue to market 35mm cameras in "emerging" markets like China, India and Eastern Europe.

It will also discontinue worldwide Advanced Photo System (APS) cameras. They were launched with great fanfare in 1996, but only 1.6 million units sold last year in the USA vs. 12.8 million digital cameras.

Digital cameras — which don't use film — now outsell film cameras in the USA. The gap is expected to widen even more this year.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2004-01-13-kodak-cameras_x.htm

[Deja Q]

4. Yes. But the digital process you mentioned can be flawed.

Thx for the article and info.

The prints I get from my developer are always overexposed; sky detail being lost big-time. Absolutely loathe it. Using my dedicated film scanner at home (Nikon dedicated film scanner, not a crap flatbed w/attachment), with no color alterations, I get a much cleaner/toned image from a direct scan of the negs. That's why I ask for negs only, no prints to be made. (Sometimes I will get the prints, just to better see the detail so I don't have to summarily scan every single negative.)

Also, a film camera stores the image on film. Film is the only part that needs to be improved upon. Digital uses a sensor (CCD which often introduces purple artifacting, or CMOS which is more prone to creating noise). Sensors that, along with the internal software, need to be replaced when there are improvements made to the technology. This is awesome for the camera maker because the whole thing needs to be replaced. Damn expensive and pointless for us, who kinda deserve the right thing the first time around given the up-front price. (speaking of, I can get slide film for 42 cents each and that includes processing. At that rate, I need to make at least 7000 snapshots to make up the price for a $3000 D-SLR (The current $1000 offerings from Canon and Nikon both have very serious problems so I won't even consider them). And any given year I shoot between 200 and 800 exposures.

Better yet, digital cameras (except the grossly expensive ones) don't even begin to capture shading detail as well as film. I've native film prints that blow the digital eqauivalents out of the sky; and when digitally enhancing the digital images, something else gets disprportionally altered in the crossfire. It goes back to shading.

Also, the vast majority of publications will not take a digital image - not even a 12MP image. (ISO 100 slide film is at least 18MP. And there's very little to complain about when I've scanned my slides at 6000x4000 DPI (24MP).)

APS is rubbish, btw. The film size is about half that of 35mm and is excessively grainy. Even 8x10 prints are grainy and I can see the grain in 4x6's; I dare say that APS is equivalent to 3MP. I'd rather use a low-end (5MP) digital camera and even then only for high-contrast, no-shadow situations only.

In time they will improve the technologies; but I as a consumer do not want to spend $2000 every time a higher-up digital SLR comes out. That's asinine. The camera needs to be of solid design, with the film the only module needing to be enhanced/upgraded. Digital is still in its infancy.

[arwalden]

6. I've Owned One Of Those "Disc" Cameras... The Photo Quality Was HORRIBLE..

even worse than the grainy 110-style cameras. I always loved my Kodak Instamatic camera with the 126 cartridge and Magic-Cubes.

[Pab Sungenis]

5. Physically speaking....

35mm photographic/slide film and 35mm motion picture film are identical; the only difference is how they are exposed and later processed.

Since 35mm motion picture film isn't going away anywhere near soon, there will always be some plants manufacturing film. All those companies have to do is run extra batches and package them to make photographic film.

So, as long as there is still demand, film will be available. It will just be more expensive.