This is about as tiresome as Nikon v Canon. It is also not new. There was a time at the invention of the camera when people thought painting would disappear because of photography. Then it was color photography would replace black and white and black and white would cease to exist. Then instant would replace film you had to send off to develop. How many people had the PERFECT format of film??
Well we all know none of that happened. Kodak might go away, but it isn't because of what they were selling. It was their lack of ability to adapt, and their snails pace at which they did it that put them in a bad way. Yes they could have done more with digital sooner, but had they adapted production lines to be profitable with the demand that was there, they would be much much smaller but profitable.
Kodak and all the current names just might go away, but if they do someone with a passion for photography that enjoys the smell of fixer in the morning will see an opportunity. They can start a company producing the product that actually might be better, but the down side is it will probably cost more
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: PHOTOFORUM digest 5960
From: Dan Mitchell <danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, March 28, 2012 2:49 am
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dan Mitchell
danmdan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 28 Mar 2012, at 04:01, List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students wrote:
> Re: Film is not dead
I cannot but react to the headline - "Film is not dead" It IS. Kodak is dead, Ilford is dead, Polaroid is dead - or all nearly are. R.I.P. Digital has won, get used to it guys. Embrace the dark side. No more stinky chemicals, stains in the bath, no more Kodachrome, Prof. Ektachrome E100VS, E100G, Elite Chrome Extra Color 100 - exeunt omnes.
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
