https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/12/business/kodak-survival-warning
They got anudda one. Oy vey.

Sell your hasselblads ASAP. Film is over.

Anyone with a brain switched to digital and kept film only for home developed, printed/scanned B&W photography

>>4458814
ok hylic

>>4458815
ok nophoto

Good. They deserve it. With all the demand for film over the past decade, they still fucked things up and pursued greed only to fail. Let someone else take the reigns at this point

>>4458756
They need better marketing. Reject idiots like >>4458814, start a campaign asking people if they want something real and tangible in a world of digital and artificial. Reject pixels, embrace silver crystals and dyes. Get off the screen and in to the world. A picture for your eyes only, not for clout. You get the idea

>>4458838
Neither pixels nor dyes are more real than the other

>>4458839
pixels can change at any point. once the light hits the emulsion the only change happens in development. I have all my negatives and slides where I can see the moment where a chemical reaction occurred. you have a digital file that tells a screen to display something, hoping that it isn't interpolated by the camera or the screen or increasingly, "AI." unless I take some scissors to them or there's a fire, they'll last longer than I'll live. if you forget a password or drop your computer or the webservice you rely on goes under, you may as well have not taken the pictures. I can take my images and physically turn them into a print just by using a light source. you have to rely on another intermediary to convert digital information to a CMYK profile to essentially make a photocopy of what the photo might have been. your shit isn't real, its what a computer screen interprets data as.

>>4458840
>pixels can change at any point
Reality can be changed before the light hits anything
Negatives can be duplicated or even printed out as fakes
And prints are always altered

It's meaningless navel gazing for a person who doesn't get photography

>>4458840
schizophrenic anal-log boomer with delusions of grandeur conveniently leaves out
>chemisty and color science of the film imposed by other people
>chemistry and color science of the developers imposed by other people
>chemistry and color science of the photographic paper imposed by other people
My calibrated 10bit monitor with my RAW files and accompained printer ICC profile are light gears more genuine and faithful than whatever dirty chemical soup you think is "without intermediaries"

>>4458840
Well said. Anyone who thinks this post is crazy is definitely coping. If they call you a boomer they are 100% seething as well.

>>4458841
nah, I'll take the reality I can see and irreversible chemical processes over whatever a computer tells me any day of the week. "but you can fake negatives!" is just a cope from people who think ease and efficiency are the most important thing. reality can change, sure. the camera has always lied, but it has also been a tool of truth telling. you should read believing is seeing by errol morris. and yes, the prints are altered by the printer because that's what a negative film is designed for. so that you can make an image and have the ability to print it as close to reality as possible, or to make artistic adjustments (or just to fix the fuckups you may have made). the difference is that every change must be deliberate and thought about instead of just clicking to apply your lut with your brain off.

>>4458842
and you developed your digital camera and monitor and RAW format and computer hardware solo? nothing imposed on you by other people in terms of the technology utilized? I'll stick with a tradition dating back nearly two centuries that I can do at home with some warm water and a few chemicals over paying for adobe to "fix" my images, because the entire process is about capturing moments in time either for documentary or artistic purposes, not about reaching the technical limits or being able to zoom in and see the cells of an individual leaf a mile away. technological innovation does not always equate with improvement.

>>4458846
>and you developed your digital camera and monitor and RAW format and computer hardware solo?
this tells me eveything there is to know about your complete ignorance on the matter. no point in replying further, keep living your lie

>>4458847
you said all of the things that were "imposed" on me by other people (as if i'm unaware that the things I do are contingent on things others have done), I'm simply asking if you think that you don't have anything imposed on you by others through the methods you use? why so defensive about it?

>>4458849
>I don't know how sensors work
>I don't know how raw formats work
>I don't know how computers work
that's fine, I do though

>>4458851
so when I knowingly rely on the hard work of those who came before I'm ignorant but when you delude yourself into thinking that the technology you use doesn't inherently shape the way you see, capture, interact with, or even conceptualize what an image is or should be, you're in the right? you're probably the same kind of person who thinks an LLM is just one step away from being a sentient AI because everything is just data and human brains are basically just pattern recognition machines.

>>4458842
>Why would anyone paint when the colors and canvases are imposed on you?

>>4458846
This shit here is why film died

Because the few people that liked it were schizophrenic pseuds

>>4458853
I know that a sensor simply measures the value of light that hits it at every photosite

I know this data is precisely recorded into an inspectable RAW file which will never change

I know computers and editing software that I use are deterministic and use very specific algorithms, and every action that I take will work exactly the same every time

You rely on others to give you your entire look. I rely on others to objectively measure light and accurately present it to me for editing.

>>4458840
That's mostly because of your hard drives having too high rotational velocidensity

>>4458854
>why would anyone squish blueberries to get a blue paint when you have a color mixer that precisely gives you exactly what you tell it?

File: 865988ab1e9c2c94755cd7ca3(...).jpg (94 KB, 686x582)

94 KB JPG

>found the complete Global Underground 1-30 set today
>Trump is president and libs are in full thermonuclear meltdown on social media
>Middle East is in the midst of another religious war funded on both sides by the Jews
>did Bonneville Speedweek and Danny Thompson won in a streamliner
>another film vs. digital troll thread on /p/

yup it's 2016 again

>>4458851
>>I don't know how sensors work

Sensors are just optical antenna's, active or passive. The final image one see's is created thru elaborate graphic manipulation of the waveforms that these sensors detect.

>>4458859
>This shit here is why film died

The death of film has been largely exaggerated.

>>4458860
>the technology does all of the work for me, including choosing the shutter speed and aperture. but I am in control because *I* move the slider in lightroom the way *I* want it
>also I inherently trust technology companies, they would never lie to me. my technology is objective.
>having a tangible, physical result? why would I want that?
the difference between me and you is that I know that film defines my look (or looks, since different films produce different looks, and the same negative can be printed many different ways through the use of filters and simple masking) but you insist that digital has nothing to do with yours, that somehow its more true than an actual chemical reaction that occurs when a photon hits a silver halide crystal.

>>4458860
>I know that a sensor simply measures the value of light that hits it at every photosite

Correct.

>>4458865
mostly peaceful discontinuations

>>4458866
non-distinguishing non-characteristics for small men living small lives enthralled by the small thoughts of their small minds

>>4458866
>out of nowhere the schizo boomer starts talking about automatic exposure settings that nobody ever mentioned
yep, you got BTFOd so you now have to retreat to some mental fantasy

>>4458870
>>4458869
I've been talking about the process of film photography the whole time, which includes the exposure made in camera. my interlocutor claims that they get to make the important decisions because they edit their raws. it sure sounds like they aren't making important decisions like choosing their exposure settings if they think a camera is a magic box that perfectly records light. I'll accept the concession they've given by not addressing the fact of the matter that film is real and digital is illusory

>>4458872
The concept of shooting a digital camera using manual settings is so obvious I didn't even conceive to mention it. I must excuse myself, I thought I was talking to a mentally able person

>>4458840
Both film and "digital" sensors are about photons interacting with electrons. Instead of changing irreversibly, a "digital" sensor reversibly changes its electrical properties. Then, without knowing how CMOS sensors actually work, I would assume that they are inherently analog devices (like all semiconductors are), and "digital" refers to how we process the sensor information, because there are no practical analog computers in existence.

>>4458756

As a film shooter this is so grim, first Fuji stopped making film and now Kodak is about to stop,
All other colour films are such a step down in quality. If Kodak closes down I might just about be done with the hobby.
Black and white film is just bland so that’s not an option either.

>>4458876
You're supposed to make prints with b&w film. Scanned film always looks like shit compared to a nice print.

>>4458872
>bla bla bla
small thoughts for a small man living a small life

consider the philosophical implications of your breakfast idiot

>>4458876
>Kodak is about to stop

It's not quite that bad yet.

>>4458878
>considering the difference between the digital and the real makes a man small
please tell me what you're doing with your large life, oh wise one

>>4458881
Mostly gooning

>>4458881
It does make you small to be fair
>Well MY photon count sounds more romantic when i describe it
Anything but actually taking the photos amirite

>>4458880

It’s hard to decipher, they are claiming they can pay it off from cancelling the pension they pay their employees but due to accounting rules the earnings call couldn’t say that. Not sure what to believe.

File: shopping.jpg (693 KB, 3109x3109)

693 KB JPG

This is the best Kodak camera that Kodak never made.

>>4458894
Their medium format ccd sensors are pretty nice tbqh senpai.

>>4458881
it does

both take photos
all photos are equally real and fake

cry moar

>>4458846
>a pencil is less real than a pen because the pencil can be erased to give space to a new drawing
Both film and digital sensors record light onto a medium. Film does it with silver crystals, digital does wirh silicon crystals. If you think one is more "real" than the other perhaps you believe in magic or some other retarded shit

>>4458946
>a pencil is less real than a pen because the pencil can be erased to give space to a new drawing
Well that's why legal documents are signed with pens so you kinda btfo yourself)))

>>4458956
>confuses real as in "tangible" with real as in "provable"

>>4458962
The discussion was never about forensic evidence or legal contracts, so you can take your retarded interjection back with you

>>4458946
Hatred of silicon is just thinly veiled antisemitism.

>>4458962
I swear to fucking god "dishonest" is the /p/ slogan at this point

Fuji, now kodak.
I don't want to stockpile porty 400 just so it can sit in the fridge next to my fp100c for years to come waiting for the perfect day to use.

>>4458983
The sorrows of film shooting

fuck kodak. they can die for all i care, the faggot boomers get nothing and some asian company buys the factory and runs it properly afterwards. if anything film will get cheaper and better without the boomers pulling the company down

>>4458897
Nah if your photos only live on a hard drive or sd card they aren't real, you have to actually have a physical object.

Do anyone know how foma is doing? I will fucking kill myself if the go under

>>4459019
Svema still sells sheet film. It is even cheaper and may be just as okay-ish as foma.

>>4459022
yeah, until the factory gets bombed by russians

>>4459017
Computer data is a physical object. It's physically, electrically charged silicon crystals. 1s and 0s are not imaginary. They are physical objects. Computers operate on the laws of physics. They do not cease to be real physical objects just because the machinery is too small for you to understand. Everything 'on your computer' is your real physical property, not magical aether.

Perhaps if you realize this one day you will also realize how stupid copyright law is and that rather than being the enforcing of natural rights it is actually the government manipulating the economy to redistribute undeserved wealth to a favored class while shitting on your natural rights.

Everything you have to argue about is "prove it wasnt faked in court" levels of autism that digital is actually more resilient against than film. Digital cameras can produce cryptographically signed raws which are more likely to be unaltered than a physical negative, which could easily be scanned, duplicated, and then re-projected onto fresh film, even though a dummy camera to create authentic wear and lens distortion.

>>4459026
Stock up while you still can! The film is really quite cheap.

>>4458986
You mean film will get cheaper with children dying on the factory floor because they (their hukou-trapped rural parents) will accept <$1/hr, instead of boomers paying adults a living wage, and suddenly digital becomes an even more ethical choice.

As it is, a used digital camera is already more environmentally friendly than one roll of film and there's a 20 year backlog of them.

>bbbut film is pen and digital is pencil!
Both are pencil. Fake a raw convincingly. Protip: It's actually harder than faking a negative.
There have been AI attempts but raws contain way, way too much data for AI to nail convincingly. Even mere AI noise reduction cuts huge amounts of tonal range out of the edited raw and cooks in some values like white balance.

>>4459030
the one thing we agree on is that copyright law is stupid I guess. but the images on your computer screen are simply less real than my negatives and slides no matter your cope.

>>4459033
>suddenly digital becomes an even more ethical choice.
retard alert

>>4459017
This comment isn't real

>>4459044
correct, the internet isn't real

>>4459046
>the internet isn't real
>I don't understand how it works therefore it's not a real thing
Electricity, modulation, bits, and suddenly you're swapping dick pics with a Latvian backpacker who reminds you of your dad.

>>4459052
I understand the technology involved pretty well. that doesn't make it real

File: 1722830845758058.png (393 KB, 673x709)

393 KB PNG

>>4459056
Turns out education doesn't stop people from being retarded.

>>4459035
film
>grains of silver store
>need to be developed to become even visible
>you end up with a negative which is not the real image
>need to shoot positive or reverse the negative
>need to shine a light through the slide to be visible
>need a projector to be seen big enough
>the final image you can actually enjoy is simply the light that went through the slide onto the wall
digital image
>grains of silicon store bits
>no need for development, everything's there
>open the image with a computer on a screen
>the final image you can actually enjoy is simply the light that the monitor shined by reading the values of the image
Digital is actually more real than film

>>4458756
KodACK

>>4459069
You know very little about film, bud. Embarassing.

>>4459056
It is as real as film, if not realer

a digital camera that cryptographically signs 42mp+ raws would be the most honest photographic device on earth and only "the glowies backdoor and fake EVERYTHING EVER!" schizos would disagree. as in, the ones that think nuclear weapons dont exist and all vaccines cause aspergers no exceptions.

https://www.kodak.com/en/company/blog-post/statement-regarding-misleading-media-reports/
I guess everything is okay

>>4458756
Kodak is just Jews.
It's not a film company anymore, truly, I'm serious. They went bankrupt and sold everything off years ago. This is why you see "KODAK" branded anal beads, smartphone tripods, notebooks, laptops, hair combs, dog leashes, disposable cameras (with fujifilm inside), SSDs, SD cards, flash drives, optical media, and more all because some hand wringing tinyhats thought it would be genius to buy rights to the name, buy shit from alibaba with the name on it, and sell shit to boomers who didn't get the memo that KODAK died.

File: 1713144939401101.jpg (93 KB, 1080x1080)

93 KB JPG

>>4458756
>Kodak is going out of business!
>again!
>for the -nth time!
>we'll never see them again!
>this is it guys!
>last stop!

>>4459543
>got btfod
>empty insults
typical, I accept the concession

>>4460348
>Alaris is just Jews.
ftfy

This move pushed me over the edge. I just put my last film camera, my beloved RZ67, on marketplace. I don't shoot it anyways and absolutely hate the entire dev, scan, edit process for film. My GFX 50R is good enough. rest in pieces. I really loved the idea of film and exclusively shot film for 3 years. oh well. Guess I'm no longer a luddite.

>>4460765
>absolutely hate the entire dev, scan, edit process for film
>really loved the idea of film
>exclusively shot film for 3 years
lmao what a retard

>>4458756
>I took a fucking media story at face value
are you retarded? Kodak's in a better position now than they have been in a while. >>4458876
They are not about to stop, you CNN-believing retard. Do you guys seriously think whatever subhuman moron they hire to ask a bot to write tidbits about shit online knows anything about, well, anything?

Kodak is restructuring their debt or something like that, and they are legally required to say they don't have the cash on hand for their current debts, and then the usual fucktard journalists completely misunderstood and wrote and article on something they could have understood with five minutes of research.

>>4458892
The whole pension thing was holding them back, and has been for years. The pension fund apparently has a huge surplus, so they're trying to rework it and use that to pay off some of their debt. They'll probably be fine.

They also recently invested in major upgrades for their film coating line.

>>4458983
It's not true.
You should stockpile film anyway though. I have a minifridge full of velvia plus a bunch of consumer level stuff, it lets me take advantage of sales and good deals and I always have a small stockpile of fresh film when I want it

>>4458986
It would be cheaper and better without Kodak Alaris being giant j00s about the whole thing but that's their legal contract. Maybe one day alaris could be totally out of the picture.

>>4459590
This