"Joakim Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Rob Studdert Wrote: ><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)? > > >Answer: >I do not think so, and that wasn’t my point. I do think that there is going >to be a need for film for many years to come. And the reason for that is >that only 5 percent of all people on this planet have a computer and access >to the Internet.
What on earth does having a computer or access to the Internet have to do with this??? Nothing. (I'd wager that much *fewer* than 5% have a C41 processor and print minilab!) The infrastructure for getting a print from digital is far less than that needed to get a print from color film. >And what you probably didn’t even think about is that film based cameras >still is the most spread camera type on this planet, by far. I'm sure he did think about it, but realized that it was irrelevant when both film manufacturing and use are in precipitous decline. Film manufacturing volume is determined by how much film people actually *use*, not the number of cameras available for them to use it in! -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
