Re: really no purpose anymore for traditional films (negative or diapositve) (by 2006) ?

> If film is so close to extinction as the doom and gloom prophets are so
> fond of telling the consumer and amateur photographic enthusiast, why
> are film companies like Ilford doing so well, selling their traditional
> films and papers?
> Why are photo-forums like APUG (Anologue Photography Users Group) etc
> so popular?
> Yes, digital is fast becoming the most popular way of taking
> photographs, but film photography is far from dead and there are still
> many photographers who thoroughly enjoy producing fine B&W prints on
> good ol` traditional silver gelatin papers.
> We`re not all hooked on using D-SLR`s, Photoshop and ink-jet printers
> you know?
> Digital Mono sucks.

I'm not so sure that Ilford is doing well. They're "reorganizing" and 
outsourcing a lot of what they still sell. Lucky for them that Agfa and 
Kodak are out of the black and white business entirely. We're one of the
few 
remaining custom labs who still offer true analog printing and processing 
for both b&w and color, and let me tell you that in spite of the many 
satisfied customers who travel long distances to get to us, there aren't 
enough of them to make a business model out of it. We do it because we
don't 
know how to stop doing it if you know what I mean. There's certainly no 
profit in it. The manufacturers see that as well and one has to ask if 
there's enough business for them to make products either. Every time I
order 
it's a new experience. I waited two months for a 40" roll of Ilford glossy

paper to arrive from England. Time will tell, but you may have to go back
to 
mixing your own chemistry and coating your own plates if they cut back
more 
than they already have. I hope I'm wrong.

john castronovo
www.technicalphoto.com