A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » In The Darkroom
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Will we always be able to buy film?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old January 28th 04, 07:06 AM
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?

On 1/27/2004 9:14 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

jjs wrote:
: In article , Frank Pittel
: wrote:

: What this has to do with the question is that there is a demand for
: black powder
: muskets and there is a profit in making them. Therefore in true
: capitalist fashion
: there is at least one company making them.

: Oh just shut the fcuk up, Frank.

No chance


Look, Frank, will you at least fix you idiotic drive-time Rush Limbaugh told
me so it *must* be true talk-radio sig so that it's *grammatic*? If so, I'll
think that much better of you.

Any English teacher would tell you it should be "Keep working--millions on
welfare depend on you". Two clauses, dontcha know. (You can substitute a
semicolon if that turns you on more.)

Or just go on sounding like a moron. The choice is yours.


--
It's stupid, moronic and too fcuking obvious, as obvious as counting your
fingers, so TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW or just shut the fcuk up.

- "jjs" in extremis on rec.photo.darkroom

  #22  
Old January 28th 04, 07:42 AM
HypoBob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?

Phil,

Photography came into its own in the late 19th century, but oil paints,
watercolors, etc., are still sold.

The telephone did not replace writing letters. Stationery, pens, and
inks are still sold.

Movies were invented, but people still go to plays, concerts, and operas.

TV came along, but both radio and movies survived.

Simply put, digital imaging is not a replacement technology, it is an
additional technology.

Also, there are still a few billion people in this world for whom film
will be both technologically and economically more feasible than
electronic digital processing for years to come.

Bob
----------------------
Phil Glaser wrote:

Some of this may be old news to some of you, but I just found this
story about Kodak reducing manufacturing capacity and laying of 15,000
employees: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...dak-cuts_x.htm
The story poses some interesting questioins about Kodak's future

Meanwhile, NPR did a piece this weekend on the "digital revolution":
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1616953.

The prologue to the NPR story on their website says that ". . .
Eastman Kodak will stop selling photographic film . . ." This
statement is obviously an exageration and misrepresentation of the
trend in the market and at Kodak, but it does get me thinking about
what it will be like over the next decade or two as digital eclipses
film as the medium of choice for most amatures and for many areas of
professional photography. The economics of it are such that, as
digital equipment prices fall, film will become the more expensive
option even at today's equipment and material prices. Digital probably
already is the least expensive in a certain range of quality (I mean:
if you can do with low resolution and don't need to do a lot of
creative manipulation [requiring photoshop], digital is definitely
already cheaper).

So how will it be to procure film in the next 10-20 years? Can we
imagine a day where Kodak sells little if any film? What about
companies like Ilford and Agfa and Fuji? Sure, they will stay in
business because the demand for film will probably always be
sufficient to make it a niche market. But will reduction in demand
lead to an increase in prices for film, so that, even with cheap
darkroom equipment and film cameras around, film could become a lot
more expensive than digital? Will there be fewer choices? Will film
manufacturers continue to innovate? Or will it be the opposite: will
film innovate even more to compete with digital?. . .

--phil




  #23  
Old January 28th 04, 08:33 AM
Frank Pittel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?

David Nebenzahl wrote:
: On 1/27/2004 9:14 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

: jjs wrote:
: : In article , Frank Pittel
: : wrote:
:
: : What this has to do with the question is that there is a demand for
: : black powder
: : muskets and there is a profit in making them. Therefore in true
: : capitalist fashion
: : there is at least one company making them.
:
: : Oh just shut the fcuk up, Frank.
:
: No chance

: Look, Frank, will you at least fix you idiotic drive-time Rush Limbaugh told
: me so it *must* be true talk-radio sig so that it's *grammatic*? If so, I'll
: think that much better of you.

While I'm sure Rush would like to take credit for my sig he had nothing to do
with it. I saw spray painted on the back of a truck going on twenty years ago.
That would date it well before Rush was on the radio here in Chicago.

: Any English teacher would tell you it should be "Keep working--millions on
: welfare depend on you". Two clauses, dontcha know. (You can substitute a
: semicolon if that turns you on more.)

Don't tell me that after all this time you're going to turn grammer cop on me.
Are you going to start correcting my spelling next?

: Or just go on sounding like a moron. The choice is yours.

I like it the way it is. It drives the liberal and grammer cops crazy. It's
a two for the price of one deal. :-)

: --
: It's stupid, moronic and too fcuking obvious, as obvious as counting your
: fingers, so TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW or just shut the fcuk up.

: - "jjs" in extremis on rec.photo.darkroom

BTW - I like your new SIG.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------

  #24  
Old January 28th 04, 08:42 AM
David Nebenzahl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?

On 1/27/2004 11:33 PM Frank Pittel spake thus:

Don't tell me that after all this time you're going to turn grammer cop on me.
Are you going to start correcting my spelling next?


"Grammer cop", indeed.

You are a hopeless ****ing redneck moron, Frank. Totally hopeless. Just to
ahead spelling and "grammering" like you've been all along. I was wrong to try
to help you.


--
It's stupid, moronic and too fcuking obvious, as obvious as counting your
fingers, so TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW or just shut the fcuk up.

- "jjs" in extremis on rec.photo.darkroom

  #25  
Old January 28th 04, 09:36 AM
John
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:42:51 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

You are a hopeless ****ing redneck moron,


What is this affinity you have for using terms in an effort to
alienate everyone you have any discussions with ? As in "Look, John:
why don't you just admit you're a ****ing racist, OK? It'll save
all of us a lot of time and grief."


Regards,

John S. Douglas, Photographer - http://www.darkroompro.com
Please remove the "_" when replying via email
  #26  
Old January 28th 04, 09:44 AM
Tom Phillips
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?



John wrote:

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:42:51 -0800, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

You are a hopeless ****ing redneck moron,


What is this affinity you have for using terms in an effort to
alienate everyone you have any discussions with ? As in "Look, John:
why don't you just admit you're a ****ing racist, OK? It'll save
all of us a lot of time and grief."


Probably the same affinity Frank has for always being "right." They just
can't help it. It's an anal neurosis.

  #27  
Old January 28th 04, 04:02 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?

In article , Frank Pittel
wrote:

While I'm sure Rush would like to take credit for my sig he had nothing to do
with it. I saw spray painted on the back of a truck going on twenty years ago.


Sprayed on a truck? Frank, do you realize that is possibly Art? How
moving! What weight it carries.

Oh, regarding your sig and philosophy - Last week I hired four new people:
one American and three Malasians. Any one of the Malasians is more
talented and hard-working than three Americans. A good 'deal', eh? Pretty
soon we will be outsourcing whatever it is you do. I'll give your job of
posting silliness to Usenet to a 'bot. Fair is fair. Here is wishing you
well in welfare.
  #28  
Old January 28th 04, 04:05 PM
Jim MacKenzie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?


"Dan Dunphy" wrote in message
...
I don't unsderstand what this has to do with photography, but these
are NOT original muskets. They are modern replicas, predominately sold
to re-enactors.


I think his point was that if someone makes a then-modern replica of Kodak
Tri-X in 2075, it will still be usable, just as the modern replica musket is
usable today. It would appear there is far more practical purpose for film
than muskets, and yet muskets still sell.

Jim


  #29  
Old January 28th 04, 04:20 PM
jjs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?

In article , "Jim MacKenzie"
wrote:

I think his point was that if someone makes a then-modern replica of Kodak
Tri-X in 2075, it will still be usable, just as the modern replica musket is
usable today. It would appear there is far more practical purpose for film
than muskets, and yet muskets still sell.


_Real_ muskets were each hand-made and different, lock, stock and barrel.
If something broke, a new part made had to be hand-made. Then Sam Colt
implemented standardized parts, mass production, interchangability, and
the craft of musket making all but disappeared. So now any moron can buy
and shoot a musket. Rather like photography. Sometimes this place has the
feel of a gunshop with broke tramp wannabes hanging around with nothing to
do but get in the way.
  #30  
Old January 28th 04, 05:41 PM
Matt Clara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will we always be able to buy film?


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
...
On 1/27/2004 4:54 PM jjs spake thus:

In article , Frank Pittel
wrote:

: Somebody will always pipe up with this "the reality is economics"

bullsiht.
: Just what good does it to to state the obvious? ... ah, rather like

this
: message is obvious.

It's an accurate question to a question that gets asked a lot these

days. Would
you prefer an answer like "YES, YES, YES


No. I just get tired of the morons who think that everything is answered
with the cliche regarding demand-side economics. So it is true - so
what? It's stupid, moronic and too fcuking obvious, as obvious as
counting your fingers, so TELL ME SOMETHING I DONT' KNOW or just shut

the
fcuk up.


Notice my shiny new NASTY sig? (Hope you don't mind my minor

copy-editing.)


--
It's stupid, moronic and too fcuking obvious, as obvious as counting your
fingers, so TELL ME SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW or just shut the fcuk up.

- "jjs" in extremis on rec.photo.darkroom



LOL


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.