> > From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 12:16:15 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes > > > On Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 08:00 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050825/ap_on_bi_ge/kodak_consolidation > > I've been reading this thread from the start and keep wondering where > we're talking about throwing film. > > Pardon me for correcting the thread title. It's the editor in me. > > This news story is interesting in that it refers to Kodak's digital > business as expanding. I'm not sure that's accurate. The only digital > cameras that Kodak was actually building were their pro cameras, and > they recently discontinued their whole pro line of cameras and digital > camera backs. Their point and shoot cameras are just rebadged products > from the Far East. Yes, Kodak does make CCD imaging chips, but I don't > know of any cameras using them, and they can't be selling them in any > volume. Kodak has been floundering in its attempts to go digital.
Maybe it's talking about the sales of consumer inkjets and paper. I would take that with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. > > The only thing I know of that might keep ordinary color negative film > in production is that in a number of states digital images are not > allowed as forensic evidence, but I expect that will change over time. > And, so long as motion picture companies shoot on film there will be a > demand for those types of film. But that market is also going digital. > > I don't see a future for film as a consumer item. The days when you > can go into a drugstore or Wally-Mart and pick up a few rolls of film > are definitely numbered. > > As a specialty item for fine art photographers, black and white film > should be around for some time, but will become increasingly expensive. > > Bob > > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
