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

<ellis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message news:1164695746.386508@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <ZaQah.8502$gJ1.6389@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, jeremy <jeremy@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> wrote:
>
>>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.
>
> Fuji still appears to be sup****ting film. In fact they just brought
> back Velvia 50 (presumably due to demand).
>

But could Fuji remain committed to film if Agfa, Ilford and Kodak were all

producing large quantities of film?

I remain convinced that film itself will remain, but I am uncertain of 
whether the familiar manufacturers will continue to produce it.  Perhaps 
have it outsourced to a Chinese manufacturer, and sold here with the 
familiar brand name on the box?  Kodak already does this with their Gold
200 
negative film.  "Made in China for Eastman Kodak" is discreetly printed on

the box.  Other than that, one would never know the difference.

And it costs about 33% LESS than the Rochester product used to cost me.