The film won't die first

Quest0029 wrote:

But the processing will get prohibitively expensive, medium
format scanners will no longer be made etc etc etc.

I would be surprised if scanner development came to a halt, or even
ceased. There is so much film of the past, and that film is a great
resource of images. I see no reason for people to dismiss images of the
past just because they were not digital capture.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Quest0029 wrote:

But the processing will get prohibitively expensive, medium
format scanners will no longer be made etc etc etc.

I would be surprised if scanner development came to a halt, or even
ceased. There is so much film of the past, and that film is a great
resource of images. I see no reason for people to dismiss images of the
past just because they were not digital capture.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Quest0029 wrote:

But the processing will get prohibitively expensive, medium
format scanners will no longer be made etc etc etc.


Yep, everyone will soon destroy any film images they have and only accept
digitally captured ones as "real" photography. All bow to digital capture!
--

Stacey

The PRACTICAL demise is immanent
the actual demise is in the distant future.

Donald Qualls wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, rafe bustin posted:


On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
[...]

processing,
Considering that the largest number of camera sales involve
film-based point-and-shoots, and that the development technology is
the same for those as for most MF films, and that the vast majority
of digital shooters don't print their images at all, I don't expect
to see any big changes for quite some time.


Other than the simple (but very important)
differences in form factor and loading
between 35 mm and 120/220. For every
100 rolls of the former, typical labs
might see one of the latter.


As long as the capability exists to load and bulk-process multiple
formats, I can't see where the form factor will diminish the availability
of MF processing.


When most mini-lab operators either don't know or won't admit that their
machine can process 120 just as easily as 35 mm, the capability may as
well be gone. The minilab machinery I used to occasionally patronize at
a local Costco was the same model equipment that had been doing my 120
C-41 before I moved 30+ miles from the shop I'd been going into, but the
operators swore up and down they couldn't process anything but 35 mm and
APS. For my purposes, they couldn't, even though the machine was
clearly capable.

The C-41/E-6 machines can do most formats; but the scanner/printer in some
machines need the right adaptor to do 120 or other formats. 2 of 3 places I use
can do 120, the other hasn't purchased the right doohickey for her machine ...
she simply doesn't get enough 120 business... even her own pro work has to go to
her competitor.


Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Donald Qualls wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:

Recently, rafe bustin posted:


On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 10:54:20 GMT, "Neil Gould"
wrote:
[...]

processing,
Considering that the largest number of camera sales involve
film-based point-and-shoots, and that the development technology is
the same for those as for most MF films, and that the vast majority
of digital shooters don't print their images at all, I don't expect
to see any big changes for quite some time.


Other than the simple (but very important)
differences in form factor and loading
between 35 mm and 120/220. For every
100 rolls of the former, typical labs
might see one of the latter.


As long as the capability exists to load and bulk-process multiple
formats, I can't see where the form factor will diminish the availability
of MF processing.


When most mini-lab operators either don't know or won't admit that their
machine can process 120 just as easily as 35 mm, the capability may as
well be gone. The minilab machinery I used to occasionally patronize at
a local Costco was the same model equipment that had been doing my 120
C-41 before I moved 30+ miles from the shop I'd been going into, but the
operators swore up and down they couldn't process anything but 35 mm and
APS. For my purposes, they couldn't, even though the machine was
clearly capable.

The C-41/E-6 machines can do most formats; but the scanner/printer in some
machines need the right adaptor to do 120 or other formats. 2 of 3 places I use
can do 120, the other hasn't purchased the right doohickey for her machine ...
she simply doesn't get enough 120 business... even her own pro work has to go to
her competitor.


Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Quest0029 wrote:

The PRACTICAL demise is immanent
the actual demise is in the distant future.

Jelly beans are colorful and sweet too.

Quest0029 wrote:

The PRACTICAL demise is immanent
the actual demise is in the distant future.

Jelly beans are colorful and sweet too.

Neil Gould wrote:


Now, that is interesting. Is the attachment *so* expensive as to be a
prohibitive purchase? If so, then perhaps the machine itself is a marginally
profitable investment. Since the purchase would be a business expense, it's
basically a write-off, and any loss could be used to offset profits from the
APS/35 mm process & printing. It would have to be a *really* expensive
option to not be worth having, even if just to do her own pro work.

Considering these machines go in the order of $100K and higher, and the
attachments are not standard supplies at Staples, do you really think the parts
for them are low cost? And as to your idea that a write-off is a good reason to
buy something that doesn't make a return, well I suggest you rethink that.
Better to invest that money where there is depreciation *and* return from sales.

The machine in question is busy from morning to night doing 35mm (and residual
APS). The store in question is a bit too rural to have significant 120
business, and the same store already does buiness with a competitor for E-6
developing as well as 120 work...

eg: there are better ways to employ capital than adding capacity for which there
is no market.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Neil Gould wrote:


Now, that is interesting. Is the attachment *so* expensive as to be a
prohibitive purchase? If so, then perhaps the machine itself is a marginally
profitable investment. Since the purchase would be a business expense, it's
basically a write-off, and any loss could be used to offset profits from the
APS/35 mm process & printing. It would have to be a *really* expensive
option to not be worth having, even if just to do her own pro work.

Considering these machines go in the order of $100K and higher, and the
attachments are not standard supplies at Staples, do you really think the parts
for them are low cost? And as to your idea that a write-off is a good reason to
buy something that doesn't make a return, well I suggest you rethink that.
Better to invest that money where there is depreciation *and* return from sales.

The machine in question is busy from morning to night doing 35mm (and residual
APS). The store in question is a bit too rural to have significant 120
business, and the same store already does buiness with a competitor for E-6
developing as well as 120 work...

eg: there are better ways to employ capital than adding capacity for which there
is no market.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--