> > From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:38:04 GMT > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes > > Mark, any idea why the "inkjet" chemist person was, > seemingly, pessimistic? > > Jack
For all the extra shooting most digitalista do, most of them print far less than they did when they used analogue. mike > > --- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > >> 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... > > > > > > -- > > Mark Roberts > > Photography and writing > > www.robertstech.com > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
