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

"Greg "_""
>>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.
>
> Is that across the board? Like in RA papers- I would be surprised
> if so. Film I could care less.

Yeah, even RA products. For example, I can't order many of the roll sizes 
that were once available. If it isn't a good mover for Rochester consider
it 
gone. Kodak is totally schizoid and they don't know which direction is
best 
for them. Their marketing appears to be flailing about aimlessly. HP 
rejected an offer from Kodak not too long ago when it asked to be
acquired. 
That's really what they want and it would then be easy for them to abandon

silver halide altogether. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Canon buy 
them and spin the photo business off to a group of investors who will raid

what's left the way it was done at Agfa who is incidentally being sued for

their actions. It's nasty business all around as there's a fight for the 
doors.

The other fascinating part is that there isn't much money being made in 
digital photography at all. Most of the players are in it to establish 
themselves as the leaders and drive others out in the hope that they will 
eventually win enough market share to become profitable to pay for all of 
this R&D and tooling. I think it's a fool's game and one that will end
badly 
for everyone because the product cycles are too short. It's like the
Chinese 
curse, "May you live in interesting times."