Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Nov 9, 2007, at 8:29 AM, Scott Loveless wrote: > >> Dated November 2. >> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ >> discontinuedNotice.jhtml?id=0.2.26.14.25&lc=en >> >> http://tinyurl.com/22aq9o >> >> I don't use the slide films they're discontinuing, but the HIE >> kinda hurts. > > Pontificating on the notion of who's to blame seems such a waste of > time. MBAs notwithstanding, the answer is all of us. If film was > still profitable, Kodak would be expanding its offerings. It is us, > the collective mass of all who do photography in whatever form, who > have told Kodak what is profitable by voting with our wallets. > > Film has lost the incumbent seat it held for 100 years. Newer capture > media has taken its place. Film is dead. Long live film. > > Godfrey >
Film certainly is still profitable, at least for Fuji and Ilford, as well as the smaller makers. It's not the dominant choice anymore. But Kodak has done everything possible to drive film users away, with its public statements as well as its handling of a number of products (including two which were unique to Kodak. Those being Tech Pan and HIE). As Kodak has made clear that they don't value film user's business, said users have moved over to Fuji, Ilford and others for their work. And the fact that many of Fuji's films in particular are clearly superior in performance makes this all the easier. With HIE dead, the only reason to shoot Kodak is the Portra NC's and Tri-X. And the latter only for traditionalists. -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
