I don't think I'm alone on this one. If it were to get prohibitively
expensive due to decreased demand then I guess I, along with just about
every Nature/Wildlife photographer out there, would be SOL.
Christian Skofteland
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 4:25 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
So just how rich are you? Much of what stays and goes is driven by cost.
When film is less utilized, the price to produce will go up and the price to
develop will go up. After a while, manufacturers will quit making most of
the emulsions because it doesn't make them enough money. We are already
seeing that with our precious slow films (Ektar 25, Ultra 50, etc.). When
the cost per frame is prohibitive, then we'll see how well you can single
handedly keep it alive.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Skofteland, Christian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 12:17 PM
Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital
> Maybe my problem with this thread is that some people are saying words
like
> "go the way of" "lasts" or "survives".
>
> I don't like digital photography. I don't like the way it looks. For
that
> matter I don't like video tape either.
>
> I think film has a quality that cannot be reproduced in any medium. This
> quality is hard for me to put into words but when I see a documentary by
> Howard Hall, for example, or photographs by David Doubilet, the image
> quality moves me unlike videotaped or digitally photographed images. Can
> you imagine Janus Kaminski filming Schindler's List with digital video?
>
> This is why I say you cannot use words like "go the way of" "lasts" or
> "survives" because there will be people like me who won't allow it to go
> away.
>
> Christian Skofteland
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 2:20 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Slides vs. digital
>
>
> Only until digital becomes tenable from a cost standpoint (which will be
> a few--very few--years).
>
> I'll bet still "chemical" photography survives much longer than motion
> picture
> film. As Bill Casselberry pointed out, the resolution needed for motion
> pictures is lower than for stills. The material costs (film, processing,
> etc.) are much higher. As soon as digital video equipment reaches the
> quality
> of 35mm or 16mm film and equipment costs are similar (and independent
> filmmakers
> can edit everything on their home PCs) the shift is going to happen fast.
>
> -- Original Message --
>
> >or stick with film! :-)
> >
> >
> >>And before any one argues the whole videotape vs. film issue let me say
> >that
> >>video has replaced film in consumer markets but not in the motion
picture
> >>and documentary industry.
> >
> >And that's one replacement that I can guarantee never *will* happen: the
> >motion picture and documentary makers will skip right over videotape and
> >go to digital when it's cost effective (a few more years).
> >
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> www.robertstech.com
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
