Jack Davis wrote:
Still seems to me to be a market that will enjoy
robust growth for some time.
Jack
Sales of cameras, probably. The British media is full of adverts from
all the photo companies begging people to buy their easy to use printers
and for-crying-out-loud to print something and use some consumeables.
The industry is only just beginning to see how badly it has wounded
itself by remving the cash cow that was film and processing.
--- mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Jack Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 2005/08/26 Fri PM 01:38:04 GMT
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: The Nature of Film's Final Throes
Mark, any idea why the "inkjet" chemist person
was,
seemingly, pessimistic?
Jack
For all the extra shooting most digitalista do, most
of them print far less than they did when they used
analogue.
mike
--- Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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.
When I was in Rochester last weekend I checked
in
with my friends who
work at Kodak. The ones who work in the division
that makes imaging
chips seemed fairly optimistic but everyone else
was
absolutely gloomy.
I know a chemist who works on inkjet papers and
related stuff and he
didn't seem optimistic about the way things were
going at all.
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.
I wonder what states don't allow it now? My SO
is a
pathologist who
occasionally serves as an expert witness in
court.
In New York State
they don't even ask how the image was made. Our
forensic pathologist
friend in North Carolina does his photography
exclusively digitally now.
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.
From the art shows at which I've sold prints
I've
noticed that,
regardless of what the final print looks like
(and I
expect inkjets will
catch up with wet prints before long), people
like
knowing (and being
able to tell their friends) that the print
hanging
on their wall is a
"silver gelatin" photographic print made in a
real
darkroom. This seems
to apply only to black & white prints.
Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not
picky...
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
