If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some prints
today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography. What struck me is that it said, in big type, that digital was "as fast, easy and convenient" as regular film. Not "faster, easier and more convenient". *As* fast, as easy. Sounds like digital may not exactly be "selling itself". And judging by the number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying to find my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film. Discuss amongst yourselves. -- .... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped, "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient." (Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
David Nebenzahl wrote:
: Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some prints : today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography. : What struck me is that it said, in big type, that digital was "as fast, easy : and convenient" as regular film. : Not "faster, easier and more convenient". *As* fast, as easy. : Sounds like digital may not exactly be "selling itself". And judging by the : number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying to find : my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film. : Discuss amongst yourselves. It could mean that digital camera sales are starting to slump. As to "fast, easy and convenient" you have to admit that there isn't much to using a disposible camera or one of the newer P&Ss. With a disposible you don't even have to load the film and for snap shot photography they do a good job. In the end I'm not all that interested in the trends of "consumer grade" photography. I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards. -- ------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: : Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some prints : today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography. : What struck me is that it said, in big type, that digital was "as fast, easy : and convenient" as regular film. : Not "faster, easier and more convenient". *As* fast, as easy. : Sounds like digital may not exactly be "selling itself". And judging by the : number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying to find : my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film. : Discuss amongst yourselves. In the end I'm not all that interested in the trends of "consumer grade" photography. I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards. But you ought to be; the future of the industry depends on all those Joe & Jane Sixpack types out there, not artsy-fartsy photographers who make up some tiny proportion of the market. Nobody (meaning the photo manufacturers) gives much of a **** how much film Frank Pittel and those like him buy; they're interested in how many millions of "units" they can get onto store shelves. It's not so much that being a snob in this case is annoying as it's stupid. -- .... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped, "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient." (Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
David Nebenzahl wrote:
: On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: : David Nebenzahl wrote: : : Just saw this at the drugstore photo counter as I went to pick up some prints : : today: the Fujifilm counter mat pushing digital photography. : : : What struck me is that it said, in big type, that digital was "as fast, easy : : and convenient" as regular film. : : : Not "faster, easier and more convenient". *As* fast, as easy. : : : Sounds like digital may not exactly be "selling itself". And judging by the : : number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying to find : : my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film. : : : Discuss amongst yourselves. : : In the end I'm not all that interested in the trends of "consumer grade" photography. : I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards. : But you ought to be; the future of the industry depends on all those Joe & : Jane Sixpack types out there, not artsy-fartsy photographers who make up some : tiny proportion of the market. Nobody (meaning the photo manufacturers) gives : much of a **** how much film Frank Pittel and those like him buy; they're : interested in how many millions of "units" they can get onto store shelves. : It's not so much that being a snob in this case is annoying as it's stupid. I'm not sure if you actually believe this or just going of on a scarpitti tangent. If however you do actually believe your above comments you may want to consider going to a local college and sign up for an "intro to business" class. Do you honestly believe that Kodak will continue or discontinue the manufacter of Tmax based on the sales of their disposible cameras?? The long term survival of Tmax film is based on the sales of Tmax film and it's profitablity. As to Kodak and other manufacturers of film (as well as paper and chemistry) caring about what I and the millions of photographers around the world buy. They care very much about what we think, what we buy and how much of it we use. -- ------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
On 10/19/2005 6:00 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:
David Nebenzahl wrote: : On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: : In the end I'm not all that interested in the trends of "consumer grade" photography. : I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards. : But you ought to be; the future of the industry depends on all those Joe & : Jane Sixpack types out there, not artsy-fartsy photographers who make up some : tiny proportion of the market. Nobody (meaning the photo manufacturers) gives : much of a **** how much film Frank Pittel and those like him buy; they're : interested in how many millions of "units" they can get onto store shelves. : It's not so much that being a snob in this case is annoying as it's stupid. I'm not sure if you actually believe this or just going of on a scarpitti tangent. If however you do actually believe your above comments you may want to consider going to a local college and sign up for an "intro to business" class. Do you honestly believe that Kodak will continue or discontinue the manufacter of Tmax based on the sales of their disposible cameras?? The long term survival of Tmax film is based on the sales of Tmax film and it's profitablity. As to Kodak and other manufacturers of film (as well as paper and chemistry) caring about what I and the millions of photographers around the world buy. They care very much about what we think, what we buy and how much of it we use. You're missing the point. There are thousands of you out there (that is, users of what Kodak calls "professional" products, like TMax film, sheet film, etc. There are *millions* of "non-professional" consumers. Which group do you think Kodak pays more attention to? (Hint: which group does Kodak *have to* pay more attention to?) -- .... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped, "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient." (Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS) |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
David Nebenzahl wrote:
: On 10/19/2005 6:00 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: : David Nebenzahl wrote: : : : On 10/19/2005 4:43 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: : : : In the end I'm not all that interested in the trends of "consumer grade" photography. : : I'm sure that I'm not alone in having much higher standards. : : : But you ought to be; the future of the industry depends on all those Joe & : : Jane Sixpack types out there, not artsy-fartsy photographers who make up some : : tiny proportion of the market. Nobody (meaning the photo manufacturers) gives : : much of a **** how much film Frank Pittel and those like him buy; they're : : interested in how many millions of "units" they can get onto store shelves. : : : It's not so much that being a snob in this case is annoying as it's stupid. : : I'm not sure if you actually believe this or just going of on a scarpitti tangent. : If however you do actually believe your above comments you may want to consider going : to a local college and sign up for an "intro to business" class. Do you honestly believe : that Kodak will continue or discontinue the manufacter of Tmax based on the sales of : their disposible cameras?? The long term survival of Tmax film is based on the sales of : Tmax film and it's profitablity. : : As to Kodak and other manufacturers of film (as well as paper and chemistry) caring about : what I and the millions of photographers around the world buy. They care very much about : what we think, what we buy and how much of it we use. : You're missing the point. There are thousands of you out there (that is, users : of what Kodak calls "professional" products, like TMax film, sheet film, etc. : There are *millions* of "non-professional" consumers. Which group do you think : Kodak pays more attention to? (Hint: which group does Kodak *have to* pay more : attention to?) The problem that you're having is that you think there's significant overlap between the users of "professional" and "consumer" grade products. A drop in sales of disposable cameras loaded with "bright" film wouldn't result in a change in the sale of Tmax-100. The mistake that you're making is in thinking that the two markets are joined at the hip. Aside from the general decline in film sales overall they are independent of each other. The sales volume and profitablity of one is independent of the other. As a result the survival of consumer grade film is largely independent of each other. Of course if Kodak goes out of business then it all goes away. -- ------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
On 10/19/2005 9:42 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:
The mistake that you're making is in thinking that the two markets are joined at the hip. Aside from the general decline in film sales overall they are independent of each other. The sales volume and profitablity of one is independent of the other. As a result the survival of consumer grade film is largely independent of each other. Of course if Kodak goes out of business then it all goes away. Right--that's the point. Or it all goes away if Kodak decides to get out of the film business altogether(as opposed to the digital photo business). So the two markets *are* "joined at the hip" in this way. -- .... asked to comment on Michigan governor George Romney's remark that the army had "brainwashed" him in Vietnam—-a remark which knocked Romney out of the running for the Republican nomination—-McCarthy quipped, "I think in that case a light rinse would have been sufficient." (Eugene McCarthy, onetime candidate for POTUS) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
David Nebenzahl wrote:
: On 10/19/2005 9:42 PM Frank Pittel spake thus: : The mistake that you're making is in thinking that the two markets are joined at the hip. : Aside from the general decline in film sales overall they are independent of each other. : The sales volume and profitablity of one is independent of the other. As a result the survival : of consumer grade film is largely independent of each other. Of course if Kodak goes out of : business then it all goes away. : Right--that's the point. Or it all goes away if Kodak decides to get out of : the film business altogether(as opposed to the digital photo business). So the : two markets *are* "joined at the hip" in this way. The only reason Kodak would stop making film or film products is if it becomes unprofitable to do so. Since Kodak has publically anounced that thier film division was the cash cow funding their research in digital there's no reason to think that they will stop making film anytime soon. Emulsions may be discontinued but film will remain. -- ------------------- Keep working millions on welfare depend on you |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Digital burying "traditional" photo? Not so fast ...
In article 1129757804.3b89f67b13378086d5b3933e4f040474@teran ews,
David Nebenzahl writes: And judging by the number of photo envelopes the technicians were looking through trying to find my prints, a *lot* of folks still use regular old film. I wouldn't read too much into that. Most drugstore photo sections handle both film and digital. It's possible that most of those envelopes were filled with prints from digital cameras. (I don't know how LIKELY that scenario is, though.) -- Rod Smith, http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Price War Hits Digital Photos | MrPepper11 | Digital Photography | 3 | March 19th 05 12:32 AM |
Photo lab printing in Canada: Results part 1 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 14th 05 01:41 AM |
NYT article - GPS tagging of digital photos | Alan Browne | Digital Photography | 4 | December 22nd 04 07:36 AM |
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? | eProvided.com | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 5th 03 06:47 PM |
Lost Your Digital Pictures? Recover Them - Are you a professional photographer w corrupt digital images, an end user with missing photos? | eProvided.com | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | September 5th 03 06:47 PM |