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

"babelfish" <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:X5Nah.36548$a_2.10967@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Greg "_"" <
>>> I've done E-6 in the past. I don't want to do it again.
>>
>> Some are better at it than others. Their are trade offs for and
against.
>> I have had mixed results. If you invest the time and understand it am
>> sure you can get every bit as good results doing it yourself- perhaps
>> with calibration of your system even better than the labs.
>
> The question is really whether or not you'll be able to buy the film and

> chemistry in a few years, not whether or not you can do it yourself.
I've 
> been running a large custom lab for thirty years and I can't believe the

> drop off in sup****t from Kodak in just the last six months. I get the
real 
> feeling that they want film and chemistry gone as soon as possible. Let
me 
> qualify that. The friends in tech sup****t that I have there are doing
the 
> best they can under the circumstances and they are great people, but 
> management and marketing have their own agenda and it has nothing to do 
> with the film or the past.
>
>
>> "As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more
closely,
>> the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some
great
>> and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's 
>> desire
>> at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
>> - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
>
> I love Mencken and this quote in particular. After Gore Vidal goes,
there 
> will be no critical thinkers left of this stature on the American 
> landscape.
>

It is no secret that Kodak has embraced digital.  They saw the handwriting

on the wall.  Kodak is a sort of mass-marketer, and they cannot base their

future growth on a technology that is shrinking.

That they will have to withdraw from manufacturing film is a virtual 
certainty.  But that does not mean that  other, smaller companies cannot 
prosper with film.

Kodak had a distribution and sup****t network that was well-established,
and 
that is the part that we'll miss most.  When Kodak pulls out of film, you 
can bet that the majority of retailers will use their floor space for more

profitable items.  Film will then become a commodity that must be gotten 
online, not something that one buys at almost any retail store.

On-site processing will certainly take a major hit.  Sores that don't sell

film are hardly likely to process it.

This is not to say that film will disappear, only that it will be made 
probably in China, and will be purchased and processed via mail order, 
rather than locally.  For now I intend to continue enjoying film.

The bright side is that camera equipment (digital) continues to become
more 
readily available, and that our ability to create images will grow, not 
shrink.  I suspect that there will be relatively few photographers that
work 
exclusively in film.  More likely those that use film will do so along
with 
digital, and will utilize film for its unique characteristics in creating 
the images they want, the way that a photographer today might select a 
particular format to work in.

I do not believe that Kodak embraced the change, but rather had the
courage 
to not be in denial about the ****ft in the wind.  Kodak will survive. 
Other 
photographic companies will not.

As much as I sup****t film, I scan and edit my images digitally, and I use
an 
online printing service rather than patronize a local lab.  There is no 
argument with the fact that I have more control over my images now than I 
ever had in the past.  The Qualex prints that I had done just last year
look 
anemic compared to the stuff I can produce with a $59.00 copy of Paint
Shop 
Pro Photo.  I never did like (wet) darkroom work anyway.  Whether there
will 
continue to be a market large enough to sup****t even a single enlarger 
manufacturer is an open question.

There is little doubt that traditional amateur film photography has no
real 
future growth prospects.  But this scenario has occurred countless times
in 
many lines of business.  Just look at how the Internet and other forms of 
killer technologies have virtually wiped out the long distance business. 
I 
remember when a daytime coast-to-coast call on AT&T cost $.57 per minute, 
and when Western Union charged $4.00 for transmitting a Telex message 
between two teletype machines at distant locations.  Today we can call or 
email virtually for free, as part of the broader Internet packages that we

all have.

There was a time when every one-horse town had a village blacksmith, too .
. 
..

Change brings new op****tunities.  I only hope that those of us that want
to 
hang on to the traditional technologies will continue to be serviced.  I 
believe that we will, but not quite as conveniently as now.