is it a forgone conclusion...

In article ,
bob wrote:

Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film.

But very relative and intrinsically linked.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

bob wrote:
....

Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film.

Bob

The reasons might be, but the end result is the same. Lack of film is
just one reason why, but why not consider others, and those specific to
digital?

Steve

Steven Kefford wrote:


Nobody is denying that overall film sales are declining. The market is
shrinking, even if you do exagerate your case.

Since all the facts I reported come from either press releases or annual
reports, I'd be interested to know what you think I've exagerated.

Read
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pr/prht.html.

Yes, I referenced this in one of my first posts on this topic.

As I said, Ilford wants b&w materials will continue to be available for
a long time. The fact that they went bankrupt recently makes it appear
that their goal might not be an easy task.

And so what if new film is more suitable for scanning.
How does this prove that film is dead?

I never said it did.

Obviously there will be some restructuring, but not of this makes
your case. "Car sales decline - car industry dead in two years" - I
don't think so.

You're ignoring the more interesting bits, and inventing a very short
timeline -- putting words in my mouth. A more accurate headline would
be: "Detroit switches to fuel cells; Exxon reeling"

Your analogy is flawed because it isn't car sales that are down (Camera
sales are up). It's just that the growth segment (digital) doesn't
require gasoline (film). Sure there's still a billion film cameras out
there, but as more and more people stop buying film how long will it
remain viable to run huge plants to make the stuff? Did you read the
part of Fujifilm's annual report where they mention that the growing
segment of their film business is motion picture film? It's not for
shooting pictures, it's for distributing them. You gotta know that
Hollywood wants to migrate that to digital too.

I bet that in 2 years Kodak will sell fewer types of film than they do
today. I bet in 10 years Kodak will not sell consumer film at all. I bet
that they will still sell "professional" film, but that most of the
buyers will not be professionals at all, but guys like us.

Bob

Steven Kefford wrote:


Nobody is denying that overall film sales are declining. The market is
shrinking, even if you do exagerate your case.

Since all the facts I reported come from either press releases or annual
reports, I'd be interested to know what you think I've exagerated.

Read
http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pr/prht.html.

Yes, I referenced this in one of my first posts on this topic.

As I said, Ilford wants b&w materials will continue to be available for
a long time. The fact that they went bankrupt recently makes it appear
that their goal might not be an easy task.

And so what if new film is more suitable for scanning.
How does this prove that film is dead?

I never said it did.

Obviously there will be some restructuring, but not of this makes
your case. "Car sales decline - car industry dead in two years" - I
don't think so.

You're ignoring the more interesting bits, and inventing a very short
timeline -- putting words in my mouth. A more accurate headline would
be: "Detroit switches to fuel cells; Exxon reeling"

Your analogy is flawed because it isn't car sales that are down (Camera
sales are up). It's just that the growth segment (digital) doesn't
require gasoline (film). Sure there's still a billion film cameras out
there, but as more and more people stop buying film how long will it
remain viable to run huge plants to make the stuff? Did you read the
part of Fujifilm's annual report where they mention that the growing
segment of their film business is motion picture film? It's not for
shooting pictures, it's for distributing them. You gotta know that
Hollywood wants to migrate that to digital too.

I bet that in 2 years Kodak will sell fewer types of film than they do
today. I bet in 10 years Kodak will not sell consumer film at all. I bet
that they will still sell "professional" film, but that most of the
buyers will not be professionals at all, but guys like us.

Bob

Gregory Blank wrote:
In article ,
bob wrote:


Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film.


But very relative and intrinsically linked.


Not necessarily -- Just because there might be billions of functional
film cameras does not mean that there will be billions of people wanting
to buy film for them.

Bob

Steven Kefford wrote:
bob wrote:
...


Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film.

Bob


The reasons might be, but the end result is the same. Lack of film is
just one reason why, but why not consider others, and those specific to
digital?

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I've been attempting to explain why I feel a lack of demand at the
consumer and professional level for 35mm color negative film, paried
with a conversion of movie distribution from film to digital, will
result in the disappearance of 35mm color negative film from the
marketplace.

It doesn't matter if the cameras continue to work for 100 years. I've
got a camera that works which takes 125 film. I've likewise got a camera
that takes disk film. The fact that the cameras continue to work doesn't
mean that film will be available for them.

My turntable works just fine too, and I bet there were more of those in
the US marketplace than 35mm cameras. I am aware of no store within 100
miles of my house that sells LPs. You can still buy turntables, btw.

Bob

Steven Kefford wrote:
bob wrote:
...


Longevity of cameras is a way different topic than availability of film.

Bob


The reasons might be, but the end result is the same. Lack of film is
just one reason why, but why not consider others, and those specific to
digital?

I don't understand what you're getting at.

I've been attempting to explain why I feel a lack of demand at the
consumer and professional level for 35mm color negative film, paried
with a conversion of movie distribution from film to digital, will
result in the disappearance of 35mm color negative film from the
marketplace.

It doesn't matter if the cameras continue to work for 100 years. I've
got a camera that works which takes 125 film. I've likewise got a camera
that takes disk film. The fact that the cameras continue to work doesn't
mean that film will be available for them.

My turntable works just fine too, and I bet there were more of those in
the US marketplace than 35mm cameras. I am aware of no store within 100
miles of my house that sells LPs. You can still buy turntables, btw.

Bob

In article ,
bob wrote:

Not necessarily -- Just because there might be billions of functional
film cameras does not mean that there will be billions of people wanting
to buy film for them.

Bob

Its a quality issue. The more incentive for makers
not to make a quality product at an affordable price
the more you will pay to get that quality back,
end of story.

If your spending 3k now to get 1/2 the quality a 6x6 MF
camera which might cost 3k for an outfit that would otherwise
have free clear life span ( Once paid for////I paid for mine after a few
jobs). Now that 3k buys you a system that is obsolete in 3-5
years,..........what do think it will cost in 5 years to re-buy a
better system to stay on par with the competition?

But there are whole lots of issues like a shrinking pro market
that can afford that 3k+ system on a three year cycle so makers
are less inclined to build better systems that have no obsolescence
built in. Of course as a pro I can deduct that 3k+ in one year thanks
to Uncle Sam so maybe I shouldn't complain. But I have to have enough
good jobs to pay for it,....plus everything else :-)

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

In article ,
bob wrote:

Not necessarily -- Just because there might be billions of functional
film cameras does not mean that there will be billions of people wanting
to buy film for them.

Bob

Its a quality issue. The more incentive for makers
not to make a quality product at an affordable price
the more you will pay to get that quality back,
end of story.

If your spending 3k now to get 1/2 the quality a 6x6 MF
camera which might cost 3k for an outfit that would otherwise
have free clear life span ( Once paid for////I paid for mine after a few
jobs). Now that 3k buys you a system that is obsolete in 3-5
years,..........what do think it will cost in 5 years to re-buy a
better system to stay on par with the competition?

But there are whole lots of issues like a shrinking pro market
that can afford that 3k+ system on a three year cycle so makers
are less inclined to build better systems that have no obsolescence
built in. Of course as a pro I can deduct that 3k+ in one year thanks
to Uncle Sam so maybe I shouldn't complain. But I have to have enough
good jobs to pay for it,....plus everything else :-)

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

The advent of photography did not bring about the end of painting,
the
method of recording images before photography.

True, but photography didnt say it WAS painting, even though it tried
to imitate it, the way Digital Imaging says it IS photography as if
there is no difference.


The advent of color film
didn't eliminate black and white. Video didn't wipe out still
images, and
digital won't eliminate film.

I hope not.

The reality is that film and digital are different.

Says you. You must be a film user. :-)


Digital offers
characteristics that film doesn't have and never will. And film
offers
characteristics that digital doesn't have yet, and probably won't
ever
offer, at least in my lifetime. (Try taking a digital image into
court and
you'll learn an enormous limitation of digital.)

Bob in Las Vegas