Hi, I don't think the reasons for keeping the film line open are as simple as you state. It will be a question of demand. This may stabilize in the future, and we may be surprised at the outcome. Kodak, as all other companies have been going through a period of adjustment, which would have happened to some degree even with out the digital emergence. Kodak has consolidated film, and paper production into modern facilities, and has taken older facilities off line. Ilford has made some poor financial decisions, and now it is caught in an awkward situation. If they can not recover they will be missed of course, and the void will quickly be filled by those still solvent. Film has enough unique differences from digital that I don't think digital will completely replace film in the foreseeable future. Jonathan -----Original Message----- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 6:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SV: The film is dead
On 14 Dec 2004 at 13:49, Joakim Johansson wrote: > If we think about it for a second, it may strike us that the digital > revolution is nothing but an easy summer breeze. In a global perspective > that is. > > Still most people around the world doesn't even has electricity, and > therefore certainly no DLSR.s. I don't think the film is dead! Do you seriously think that film manufacturers are going to keep non-profitable film production lines on ice for those people across the globe who still don't have electricity (let alone the ability to afford cameras/film/processing or prints)? I think you'll find that low end (but capable) digital cameras will very quickly become more cost effective than film cameras and all film but those destined for a for few niche markets will die out. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
