That would just make film very sluggish, rather than dead <grin>. -- Best regards, Bruce
Monday, April 25, 2005, 10:37:14 AM, you wrote: TC> It's not dead. I just bought 32 rolls of 220 and they're alive in my TC> refrigerator. :) TC> Tom C. >>From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Reply-To: [email protected] >>To: <[email protected]> >>Subject: RE: Film is dead... >>Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:27:08 +0200 >> >>I don't hope film is dead or dying. >>I just bought (Joe Wilensky's) MZ-S - I want to shoot slides again! :-) >> >>Jens Bladt >>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt >> >> >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- >>Fra: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sendt: 25. april 2005 19:12 >>Til: [email protected] >>Emne: Re: Film is dead... >> >> >>We teach several courses at my college based on traditional film >>photography. They are inevitably overfilled with long wait-lists. The >>funny part is that the camera of choice is (still) the K-1000. (I have >>let student borrow lenses and even gave my old Tak 135 2.5 to I student >>I knew.) I think we are seeing digital becoming the main stream method >>of choice and film becoming an artistic alternative. Since many >>amateurs treat photography as an art from, film should continue to do >>well. >> >> >>Steven Desjardins >>Department of Chemistry >>Washington and Lee University >>Lexington, VA 24450 >>(540) 458-8873 >>FAX: (540) 458-8878 >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >>
