William and others on this list are a small part, almost a microcosm, of the industry, and do not reflect, except by wishful thinking, the overall market for film, paper, and the photographic process in general. Look at the makeup of the list. Everyone has a computer. Everyone has lots of resources (not just financial, but electric power, access to goods and services, and so on). There are many places and many, many people who couldn't give a damn about digital photography because it's just not worthwhile for them to buy the associated hardware, or perhaps there is no reasonable access to labs in their area, or even places to buy memory cards, card readers, and the like. That may, of course, change, but it will be quite a while before it changes to the point that film is dead, and by that time film will probably have had a rebirth of sorts. Film will not die.
Jerry Todd Dancing Frog Studios Calaveras, California From: Chris Stoddart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Herb Chong wrote: > > > ink and paper won't because at least the same number of people using it > > will continue using it. not true with film, as those on this list who > > work on the processing end of it are telling us all the time. > > So why can't there be fewer manufactuers still producing film? Why can't > film production be scaled down profitably? Why does it have to die if > Kodak or Fuji suddenly stop making it? Is EVERYONE in the world going to > go digital in the next decade or perhaps just William's first-world > high-street consumers? > > Chris
