Map.
"Scott W" <biphoto@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:469bb786$0$24766$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>© James Roney wrote:
> > (3) Fiji and Kodak are/or already have gotten out of making film.
> Though
>> film will still be around for a while longer, you chasing something
that
>> is dying and dying fast.
>
> Both Kodak and Fuji are still making a lot of film. How long this will
> last is anybody's guess, but you make it sound like they have gotten out
> of the film business already.
Hi Scott,
Both Fuji and Kodak both announced they were getting out of the film
industry. The announcement came via NPR, National Public Radio. They will
be
getting out of it in two separate stages; first film cameras then followed
by film itself.
About 10 months ago, many major camera manufactures like Kodak, Cannon,
Fuji
announced that they will no longer be making film cameras.
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6035_102-0.html?forumID=77&threadID=140106&messageID=1687524Fri
20 Jan, 2006 11:23 am:Today, according to CNN, Konica-Minolta have
announced that they will nolonger be making film cameras, films and other
products to do with filmphotography. This comes after Kodak announced last
year that it was also notmaking any more film
cameras.http://www.luxor4u.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4252&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=&sid=26bfae5575371751da41eae928da6a04Fall
2006:Nikon has announced that they will no longer be making film cameras
exceptfor their top end F6 model and their low-end, manual focus, FM10.
Thereforein the head long stampede to embrace the 'digital revolution' the
camerashops are dumping their film SLRs as quickly as they
can.http://www.bebo.com/Blog.jsp?MemberId=16822796Since
these links above
reveal the serious move to stop making film cameras,it's not that far away
before film will be next. However, I strongly believethat someone will fill
the nitch for years to come, but at what price andquality if the big dogs
stay their course.You might want to type in Google with quotes, "the end
of film" .>>> Over all I agree that digital is a better path to take, but
I do think youare over stating the current state of film.>> BTW a MF
camera will give very good photos as well, it is just a lot morework then
digital.I agree, you do get very good results with film, but when you do a
side byside comparison, there is a big difference, especially when you blow
it upreal big.Example: In the fall of 2006 I was one of two independent
photographers whowere called to shoot a celebrity wedding. The other
photographer wa***tremely well know for his wedding photography of
celebrities and usednothing but film cameras, where as I used the MARK II
N digital camera; nowmoving over to the new Mark III in a few weeks.When I
turned in my photos to the client and saw my work they became verycandid
with me and felt they did not receive professional services from theother
photographer. They were so upset over the vast difference (yes it wasvast)
that they gave me the key code to where the photographer had placedtheir
wedding photos so I could see for myself. The biggest difference Ifound
was that my photos were extremely vibrant, much so, it made hiswedding
photos look dreary in comparison. The client agreed that it was thebig
difference in vibrancies between the two photographer's work that setthe
photos apart. They bailed on taking delivery of all of but 12 of hisphotos
and ordered nearly 700 photos in all from me instead.Since then, I have
paid special attention to the differences between thevery best of film
cameras verses the best of digital and the dead give awayto me is the
extreme vibrant quality of digital photography that film is nolonger able
to match.As a professional photographer, this difference in quality should
no less bepassed down to the client, all while saving the client money
since dozens ofrolls of film are no longer required. With the difference
being so vast,anyone who offers their client anything else is giving them
less for theirmoney.Kind regards,James Roney>> Scott>
|
