Thanks for spelling edit! Embarrassed, but grateful.:-) Do you have a more optimistic view about the life of positive color film?
Jack --- Bob Shell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > 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 > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
