I don't think Kodak will stay alive selling film to people developing and printing with a single lamp in their house.
I think what you are saying is that digital is too costly for many parts of the world. I am saying that not only is digital too costly, but that making a thriving business (Kodak, Fuji) selling and processing film in these areas is too costly. Yes, for these people, film may be the only means of recording memories, but it is not going to be a mainstream business that helps run the rest of the world consumption in a thriving manner. The big players will basically drop out (almost have now), they will quit doing R&D, and continue to phase out films that aren't selling well. Prices of film will go up and the cost to develop will also go up. Film will be around, but not at all like it is today. Don't get me wrong, part of me is very sad to see this change. On the other hand, part of me is thrilled with what the new technology brings to the table. Hope I am making some sense. -- Best regards, Bruce Monday, December 8, 2003, 11:32:18 AM, you wrote: DT> Not super consumers like us, but they are many. Even in good parts of DT> a city like Jakarta each household has 10 Amps. Electricity is a DT> limited resource. You can develop and print from analog film with one DT> lamp. Try that with a digital file. DT> Analog photography was born without the knowledge of electricity. I DT> don�t think it will die from the lack of it. DT> DagT DT> P� 8. des. 2003 kl. 20.07 skrev Bruce Dayton: >> Hello Dag, >> >> Sounds like for those parts of the world, that they are not much of a >> market for any kind of photography - film or digital. Film requires >> some kind of lab >> facilities and expendable income to purchase cameras, film and >> processing. They don't sound like major consumers to me. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bruce
