I recognize that, Bill. heck, I do the same sort of thing at times. My point - my hope - is that film won't disappear. It is, however, clear that more and more people are using digital cameras, and fewer are buying film cameras. A friend made this comment recently, and it's something for some people to consider: "... when you go much bigger the digital image disintegrates into pixels but the film just gets softer and grain gets bigger. There is still a film image."
Most people don't print large, and many people are quite satisfied with 8x10 sized prints, while most prints are made quite a bit smaller. But when the time comes to make those 16x20 prints from current digital slr cameras with 6mp sensors, there is going to be some substantial quality differences between digital and film. Yes, digital results can be improved in many ways, and i have seen some startling good results, but that requires a higher and more expensive technology. And, of course, Joe doesn't usually make large prints. And then there's B&W ... a realm unto itself, it seems <LOL> IAC, the thread here is about the practicality of film, and, in many instances, it's still quite practical and useful. Will it forever remain so? Probably not from the POV of the average consumer, but, as you say, there will probably be an enthusiast and artisan market. I think it'll be like many other goods and services, where there are consumers willing and able to do whatever it takes to get the quality they want. Shel Belinkoff > [Original Message] > From: Bill Owens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 5/18/2004 9:48:58 AM > Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film > > Mornin' Shel > > You may have a point when it comes to enthusiasts like many on the list. > However, for the average consumer digital is becoming easier and easier. > For example, a couple of weeks ago I shot some wedding candids. I was able > to take my CF card to Wal-Mart, insert it in the Aladdin scanner, pick out > the images I wanted printed, and less than an hour later I had 113 4x6 > prints in hand for $27.12. That's the equivalent of about 5 24 exposure > rolls of film (which is what Joe Sixpack shoots) for less than the cost of > film and processing. > > Bill > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 12:30 PM > Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film > > > > Hi, Tom ... > > > > My comment about film slumping and having a resurgence is based, in part, > > on how vinyl records and turntables "disappeared" but have recently come > > back. IOWA, after the newness of digital wears off, a number of people > > will come back to film for any number of reasons. Of course, predicting > > the future, one way or another, is, to a degree, folly. > > > > Shel Belinkoff > > > > > > > [Original Message] > > > From: Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Date: 5/18/2004 9:00:18 AM > > > Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film > > > > > > Shel I understand your point of view, but probably disagree a bit. I > > can't > > > see film going through a slump and then returning to some appreciable > > level > > > like the stock market. I think it will just slump and slump until it's > > off > > > the radar of all but the most diehard users. > > > > > > >
