----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
> Frankly, you are talking here to a bunch of eliteists who still think 40 year old Spotmatics with SMC Takumars are great cameras! Me among them. :-) The problem with eliteists is that they seem to think that they matter. They don't, they are just a statistical anomoly that tends to be ignored when the real world starts making decisions. > > Digital photography still has issues to address. Being computer literate is the first hurdle. Owning a computer is the second. Long term storage is the third. Computer literacy as a requirement is a thing of the past. Owning a computer is no longer necessary, no more so than owning a darkroom is to a film photographer. Long term storage is a non starter for most people. They get their prints, and they are happy. If they need a copy, they get the copy made from the print. Right now, we are selling 32mb cards for about 20 dollars. Right on the packaging, they manufacturer is stating that they are suitable for storing image files. They are aimed at the 2mp camera user, and will store somewhere around 100 images (so they say). So, for the cost of 4 rolls of film, the 2mp camera user (the engine of the industry at the moment) can by enough memory to keep the same number of pictures on a card as he could keep on film. No computer, no problems with image storage, just as much or more convenience as they get with film. William Robb > > I can't imagine my children's children going thru Grandpa's old computer discs looking for photos. The prefered method of storing treasured photos over the past 100 years has been to throw them into a box under the bed or desk drawer. We still haven't worked this out for digital, as my fading and flaking 1 year old inkjet test photo will attest to. > > To state the obvious, photography is a visual thing. For me, it's about the sharpness of that projected slide, the detail I can see, and the lifelike image it gives me. I don't think we will get past this issue for a while in 35mm, and for a long while in medium format. 6x7 transparencies are still breathtaking to look at. > > I'm watching ebay for good deals on 6x7 glass as I try to fill out a 67II kit, but it's strictly a hobby for me. If your wife wants some surgery, go for it. If medium format film does become scarse, the price of the equipment will fall as well. So you will benefit from the wait. Don't worry, be happy! > > Regards, Bob S. > > Tom C. writes: > > > I have planned to buy a 67II for a number of years. I am now trying to > > determine the practicality of that course. > > > > What if in five years most photography is being done digitally as opposed to > > film? What if it's impractical for amateurs, even pros, to use MF/LF > > photography for any but the most eliteist of applications? > > > > Even considering the potential quality of MF over 135, it seems history may > > tell us that potential quality is not the sole factor in longevity and > > success. Both 620 and 828 saw their demise, even though they were a larger > > format than 135. If major players (camera and film manufacturers) are/were > > to move away from 135 film, how long is it until they move away from larger > > film formats which currently represent a smaller portion of the market than > > 135? > > > > For a fraction of the price of the price of a decent/complete MF system, > > there are other things... hot tub, SCT telescope for astrophotography... a > > surgery my wife has always wanted... > > > > I'm curious, what people think... is it possibly throwing money down the > > drain to 'invest' in additional film equipment? I'm not making a case for > > this, just wondering. The world is currently changing at a > > faster pace than most imagined was possible. > > > > Tom C. > > >
