> > From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:37:49 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes > > mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > >> This news story is interesting in that it refers to Kodak's digital > >> business as expanding. I'm not sure that's accurate. The only digital > >> cameras that Kodak was actually building were their pro cameras, and > >> they recently discontinued their whole pro line of cameras and digital > >> camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are just rebadged products > >> from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD imaging chips, but I don't > >> know of any cameras using them, and they can't be selling them in any > >> volume. Kodak has been floundering in its attempts to go digital. > > > >Maybe it's talking about the sales of consumer inkjets and paper. I would > >take that with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. > > When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked in with my friends who > work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division that makes imaging > chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else was absolutely gloomy. > > I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and related stuff and he > didn't seem optimistic about the way things were going at all.
See below. > > >> The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary color negative film > >> in production is that in a number of states digital images are not > >> allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that will change over time. > > I wonder what states don't allow it now? My SO is a pathologist who > occasionally serves as an expert witness in court. In New York State > they don't even ask how the image was made. Our forensic pathologist > friend in North Carolina does his photography exclusively digitally now. > > >> And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on film there will be a > >> demand for those types of film. But that market is also going digital. > >> > >> I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. The days when you > >> can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up a few rolls of film > >> are definitely numbered. > >> > >> As a specialty item for fine art photographers, black and white film > >> should be around for some time, but will become increasingly expensive. > > From the art shows at which I've sold prints I've noticed that, > regardless of what the final print looks like (and I expect inkjets will > catch up with wet prints before long), people like knowing (and being > able to tell their friends) that the print hanging on their wall is a > "silver gelatin" photographic print made in a real darkroom. This seems > to apply only to black & white prints. > > Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not picky... I think this is an area where the photographic industry has dealt itself a severe, if not mortal, blow. If you give Mr & Mrs Sixpack (who _do not care_ about quality) a way to look at their pictures for free, how can you possibly expect them to buy prints? The repercussions of this are only just beginning to be felt. mike ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
