Darkroom classes

In article , Stephen
wrote:

just what do these people who are taking the classes expect to do with
their new found skills? open up a custom darkroom lab?

Make beautiful prints that generations can enjoy.

prints can be made from digital.

With digital, the files would be lost once the person loses interest
in keeping the files up to date & accessible. Assuming the storage
medium even lasts. Digital needs a cpu, software, a display and
something to read the medium the digital file is on.

nonsense. film needs low humidity storage and there are no backups.
once they're damaged, they're *gone*.

The recommended storage conditions for digital media is the same. Once
digital files are damaged, they're gone also.

nonsense.

first of all, storing digital images does not need low humidity or out
of sunlight as does film. where do you come up with such idiocy?

typical hard drives can be stored between -40º to 65º c. film would
never last in those conditions.

second, digital can have unlimited 100% identical backup so even if
there is damage, there is never any loss.

You can 'backup' film to another film.

not without a loss, you can't.

*any* copy of a film image has a generational loss. this *cannot* be
avoided

not so with digital, where every copy is 100% identical to the original
and they can be in more than one place too.

digital will outlast any physical media, with unlimited numbers of
backups that can be anywhere in the world, so no risk of natural
disaster damaging anything.

Who has multiple backups all over the world?

lots of people do.

anyone who uses any of the cloud storage services or photo sharing
services has multiple redundant backups scattered across multiple data
centers.

A few, maybe, but most
won't. Many people don't even copy or move them off their cell phone
or the first computer they put them on.

that's their own decision, not a flaw of the medium.

most people don't copy film images either.

people keep negatives in a drawer or box or somewhere that is *not*
archival and will also be at risk for fire, flood or other disaster
because they don't have *any* backup, generational loss or not.

Hard drives don't survive not being used too well. Flash drives will
lose data after several years. Burnable CD/DVD/Blu-ray deteriorate in
a few years, the re-writable erase even faster.

that's only a problem if you have one copy.

since digital can have unlimited backups, there's never a reason to
have only one copy.

furthermore, backups can be automatic so the user doesn't have to do
anything at all.

film doesn't survive not being stored well either. humidity, mold, etc.
will destroy film, if fading hasn't.

Then you have
corruption/damage caused by moving the digital images and in the
future converting them to a new file format since the original isn't
or won't be usable.

nonsense. there is no corruption or damage in copying an image and the
original will almost always be usable.

where do you come up with this crap?

How would you view an old PIC file? You'll need
to know what computer and OS it used to even begin to figure what
format it's in.

if the format is documented, then it won't be a problem.

jpeg will be readable forever, as will tiff and just about all raw
formats since there's an open source raw converter. yet another bogus
claim.

Only film has PROVEN longevity. A B&W silver print or negative
processed to archival standards will last over 100 years.

complete nonsense. film degrades without doing anything and if there's
any damage, such as mold or water damage, game over.

digital will last forever, not just 100 years.

Film doesn't require special equipment to view, you can see the image
on the film with your eyeball.

only if you don't mind postage stamp sized images, and for negatives,
they'll be reversed.

120/200 and 4x5 aren't postage size.

4x5 might not be, but how many people shoot 4x5? not many.

you're all over the map trying to justify a dying medium

plus it's trivial to pull up any digital image, especially since
everyone has a computer, tablet or smartphone.

there is no reason to teach film photography any more than there is
teaching how to work a printing press. they are skills that are no
longer needed.

So, the catalogs that companies like Grizzly, Mouser, Digi-key and B&H
Photo send out don't exist? Then there are books, magazines and
newspapers.

the bulk of their business is online sales, not from a paper catalog,
which most companies don't send out anymore anyway.

Those companies I listed send out catalogs about once a year.

they used to send them out much more than that.

now nearly everything is done online.

one day they'll realize just how stupid it is to mail out a catalog.

plus, it's a *lot* easier to teach and learn digital photography than
it is film.

The only difference between the film and digital, is what's needed to
get the final output. Well, there is another, electricity isn't
needed to take a photo on film...

the days of mechanical cameras are *long* gone.

Holga cameras are still being made and sold. The same is true with
the large format cameras and their mechanical shuttered lenses.

*very* few of those are sold, but there will always be a couple of
luddites stuck in the past.

meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on to digital because it's
worlds better than film ever was.

| Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
| photographs'?
|
| not solely because there's no red eye.
|
| OK - what is the button that isn't red-eye that enables anyone to take
| good photos that they couldn't take without it?
|
| you're still missing the point. it's not about red-eye specifically.
| that's just one element.
|
| technology in cameras do all sorts of things, including, autofocus
| tracking, face detection (which is linked to autofocus), matrix
| metering, smile detection, blink detection and much more, which means
| that more people can take good photos than without that.
|

Yes, that's a good point. And bottled spaghetti
sauce allows more people to make edible "Italian"
food. Which is why cooking classes have become
irrelevant and anyone who cooks anything from
scratch "didn't get the memo". Your logic is flawless.

I have to say, though, that I'm glad I have
no plans to go to your house for dinner.

On 6/21/2014 5:02 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-06-21 08:55:54 +0000, Eric Stevens said:

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 01:07:40 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There was once a time where REAL photographers knew the techniques
necessary
to prevent "red-eye". Now, any moron can touch a button to clean
up his
sloppy snapshots.

that's a good thing, since it empowers anyone to take good photos, not
just the 'experts'.

Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
photographs'?

not solely because there's no red eye.

OK - what is the button that isn't red-eye that enables anyone to take
good photos that they couldn't take without it?

Select "Take Great Photo" in the shooting menu.


Doesn't it take longer that way?

There must be a more efficient method


--
PeterN

On 6/21/2014 3:35 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

There was once a time where REAL photographers knew the techniques
necessary
to prevent "red-eye". Now, any moron can touch a button to clean up his
sloppy snapshots.

that's a good thing, since it empowers anyone to take good photos, not
just the 'experts'.

Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
photographs'?

not solely because there's no red eye.

OK - what is the button that isn't red-eye that enables anyone to take
good photos that they couldn't take without it?

you're still missing the point. it's not about red-eye specifically.
that's just one element.

technology in cameras do all sorts of things, including, autofocus
tracking, face detection (which is linked to autofocus), matrix
metering, smile detection, blink detection and much more, which means
that more people can take good photos than without that.

can they still take a ****ty picture? sure, but it's harder. it doesn't
guarantee it, it just empowers people to be able to.


So you like being empowered to take ****ty pictures?


--
PeterN

In article , Mayayana
wrote:

| Do you really equate 'photographs without red eye' with 'good
| photographs'?
|
| not solely because there's no red eye.
|
| OK - what is the button that isn't red-eye that enables anyone to take
| good photos that they couldn't take without it?
|
| you're still missing the point. it's not about red-eye specifically.
| that's just one element.
|
| technology in cameras do all sorts of things, including, autofocus
| tracking, face detection (which is linked to autofocus), matrix
| metering, smile detection, blink detection and much more, which means
| that more people can take good photos than without that.

Yes, that's a good point. And bottled spaghetti
sauce allows more people to make edible "Italian"
food. Which is why cooking classes have become
irrelevant and anyone who cooks anything from
scratch "didn't get the memo". Your logic is flawless.

not even close to the same.

I have to say, though, that I'm glad I have
no plans to go to your house for dinner.

so am i, and i don't eat nor even have bottled (or canned) spaghetti
sauce anyway.

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 14:53:33 -0400, Stephen wrote:

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:29:10 -0400, nospam had
a flock of green cheek conures squawk out:

In article , Stephen
wrote:

just what do these people who are taking the classes expect to do with
their new found skills? open up a custom darkroom lab?

Make beautiful prints that generations can enjoy.

prints can be made from digital.

With digital, the files would be lost once the person loses interest
in keeping the files up to date & accessible. Assuming the storage
medium even lasts. Digital needs a cpu, software, a display and
something to read the medium the digital file is on.

nonsense. film needs low humidity storage and there are no backups.
once they're damaged, they're *gone*.

The recommended storage conditions for digital media is the same. Once
digital files are damaged, they're gone also.

You can 'backup' film to another film.


digital will outlast any physical media, with unlimited numbers of
backups that can be anywhere in the world, so no risk of natural
disaster damaging anything.

Who has multiple backups all over the world? A few, maybe, but most
won't. Many people don't even copy or move them off their cell phone
or the first computer they put them on.

Hard drives don't survive not being used too well. Flash drives will
lose data after several years. Burnable CD/DVD/Blu-ray deteriorate in
a few years, the re-writable erase even faster. Then you have
corruption/damage caused by moving the digital images and in the
future converting them to a new file format since the original isn't
or won't be usable. How would you view an old PIC file? You'll need
to know what computer and OS it used to even begin to figure what
format it's in.

Only film has PROVEN longevity. A B&W silver print or negative
processed to archival standards will last over 100 years.

Not if it is on a nitrate base.


Film doesn't require special equipment to view, you can see the image
on the film with your eyeball.

only if you don't mind postage stamp sized images, and for negatives,
they'll be reversed.

120/200 and 4x5 aren't postage size.


plus it's trivial to pull up any digital image, especially since
everyone has a computer, tablet or smartphone.

there is no reason to teach film photography any more than there is
teaching how to work a printing press. they are skills that are no
longer needed.

So, the catalogs that companies like Grizzly, Mouser, Digi-key and B&H
Photo send out don't exist? Then there are books, magazines and
newspapers.

the bulk of their business is online sales, not from a paper catalog,
which most companies don't send out anymore anyway.

Those companies I listed send out catalogs about once a year.


plus, it's a *lot* easier to teach and learn digital photography than
it is film.

The only difference between the film and digital, is what's needed to
get the final output. Well, there is another, electricity isn't
needed to take a photo on film...

the days of mechanical cameras are *long* gone.

Holga cameras are still being made and sold. The same is true with
the large format cameras and their mechanical shuttered lenses.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 01:19:55 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 20:20:28 -0800, (Floyd L.
Davidson) wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 14:29:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

If people are willing to pay money to learn something then why not let them.

they can do whatever they want but they'll learn more with digital.

the problem is that the original article was about high schools and
colleges teaching obsolete skills to students who have no choice.

No it wasn't.

It was about high schools and colleges teaching classes for which
there was an enormous demand:

"Photography is actually the most popular class at Cambridge Rindge
& Latin, according to LaSalle. "There's a maximum of 15 students per
class, and classes are always full," he said, adding that the wait
list for classes is usually in the hundreds of students."

You snipped part of the text that is very significant:

"Cambridge Rindge & Latin has two black-and-white
photography labs, two digital labs, four levels of
classes, and two photo teachers. Photography is
actually the most popular class at Cambridge Rindge &
Latin, according to LaSalle. [...]"

The statement you quoted as if it were all about film
photography is actually at least equally about both
digital and film.

Actually I was addressing the question of whether or not the high
schools and colleges were teaching obsolete skills to students who
have no choice.

You seem to be arguing that "photography" no matter how
it is defined is "teaching obsolte skills to students
who have no choice."

That is really odd.

There are lots of things odd about this.

First, your list of message references has been truncated in such a
way that your current response to my previous message has appeared as
a new first-level sub-thread.

Second, you seem to have assumed that because I am addressing a topic
I must be arguing in favour of it.

Third, I was addressing a point made by nospam, whose identity as
author you seem to have missed in spite of all the attributions being
present at the head of the article.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 21 Jun 2014 15:35:56 -0400, nospam had
a flock of green cheek conures squawk out:

In article , Stephen
wrote:

just what do these people who are taking the classes expect to do with
their new found skills? open up a custom darkroom lab?

Make beautiful prints that generations can enjoy.

prints can be made from digital.

With digital, the files would be lost once the person loses interest
in keeping the files up to date & accessible. Assuming the storage
medium even lasts. Digital needs a cpu, software, a display and
something to read the medium the digital file is on.

nonsense. film needs low humidity storage and there are no backups.
once they're damaged, they're *gone*.

The recommended storage conditions for digital media is the same. Once
digital files are damaged, they're gone also.

nonsense.

first of all, storing digital images does not need low humidity or out
of sunlight as does film. where do you come up with such idiocy?

typical hard drives can be stored between -40º to 65º c. film would
never last in those conditions.

So all those photographs found in the Antarctica didn't survive...


second, digital can have unlimited 100% identical backup so even if
there is damage, there is never any loss...

If there is damage, it isn't a 100% identical copy.


You can 'backup' film to another film.

not without a loss, you can't.

*any* copy of a film image has a generational loss. this *cannot* be
avoided

not so with digital, where every copy is 100% identical to the original
and they can be in more than one place too.

Practically all digital cameras default to saving in jpeg, it suffers
from generational loss every time its saved after editing.


digital will outlast any physical media, with unlimited numbers of
backups that can be anywhere in the world, so no risk of natural
disaster damaging anything.

Who has multiple backups all over the world?

lots of people do.

anyone who uses any of the cloud storage services or photo sharing
services has multiple redundant backups scattered across multiple data
centers.


Great idea to backup to places that can disappear at any time.
A number of cloud storage sites have gone offline, like FreeDiskSpace
and MegaUpload. Some of those cloud services delete your data if you
don't access them often enough.

A few, maybe, but most
won't. Many people don't even copy or move them off their cell phone
or the first computer they put them on.

that's their own decision, not a flaw of the medium.

most people don't copy film images either.

people keep negatives in a drawer or box or somewhere that is *not*
archival and will also be at risk for fire, flood or other disaster
because they don't have *any* backup, generational loss or not.

Hard drives don't survive not being used too well. Flash drives will
lose data after several years. Burnable CD/DVD/Blu-ray deteriorate in
a few years, the re-writable erase even faster.

that's only a problem if you have one copy.

since digital can have unlimited backups, there's never a reason to
have only one copy.

Better hope all those backups stay readable and you have verified that
the files are identical.


furthermore, backups can be automatic so the user doesn't have to do
anything at all.

film doesn't survive not being stored well either. humidity, mold, etc.
will destroy film, if fading hasn't.

Then you have
corruption/damage caused by moving the digital images and in the
future converting them to a new file format since the original isn't
or won't be usable.

nonsense. there is no corruption or damage in copying an image and the
original will almost always be usable.

where do you come up with this crap?

I had a pc that worked fine, no errors, no problems, and the os never
crashed due to memory errors. Except when copying large files, the
copies were never the same. It turned out that a memory module was
bad. 99% of PCs still don't use any error correcting for onboard
memory, so it's a problem that can still occur.


How would you view an old PIC file? You'll need
to know what computer and OS it used to even begin to figure what
format it's in.

if the format is documented, then it won't be a problem.

Which version of the format do you use? It was a common extension for
pictures years ago and some software companies kept the format they
used a trade secret. Don't forget that a storage medium in use today
may not be around in the future. For example the Mavica camera use a
floppy, no pc is sold with any floppy drive today. In 100 years, will
there be any around that are usable, assuming the floppies themselves
haven't rotted away. It's the same with hard drives, how many are
still using MFM/RLL or IDE/EIDE?


jpeg will be readable forever, as will tiff and just about all raw
formats since there's an open source raw converter. yet another bogus
claim.

Only film has PROVEN longevity. A B&W silver print or negative
processed to archival standards will last over 100 years.

complete nonsense. film degrades without doing anything and if there's
any damage, such as mold or water damage, game over.

digital will last forever, not just 100 years.

So, all those negatives and prints from the 1800s are all gone?

What digital is stored on won't last 100 years without any human
intervention before the medium deteriorates or becomes obsolete.
Remember floppies, zip drives, SyQuest drives, cassette tapes, QIC
tapes, and SmartMedia cards? They're not made anymore, so how many
photos are lost on those?


Film doesn't require special equipment to view, you can see the image
on the film with your eyeball.

only if you don't mind postage stamp sized images, and for negatives,
they'll be reversed.

120/200 and 4x5 aren't postage size.

4x5 might not be, but how many people shoot 4x5? not many.

you're all over the map trying to justify a dying medium

It's not dead.


plus it's trivial to pull up any digital image, especially since
everyone has a computer, tablet or smartphone.

there is no reason to teach film photography any more than there is
teaching how to work a printing press. they are skills that are no
longer needed.

So, the catalogs that companies like Grizzly, Mouser, Digi-key and B&H
Photo send out don't exist? Then there are books, magazines and
newspapers.

the bulk of their business is online sales, not from a paper catalog,
which most companies don't send out anymore anyway.

Those companies I listed send out catalogs about once a year.

they used to send them out much more than that.

now nearly everything is done online.

one day they'll realize just how stupid it is to mail out a catalog.

plus, it's a *lot* easier to teach and learn digital photography than
it is film.

The only difference between the film and digital, is what's needed to
get the final output. Well, there is another, electricity isn't
needed to take a photo on film...

the days of mechanical cameras are *long* gone.

Holga cameras are still being made and sold. The same is true with
the large format cameras and their mechanical shuttered lenses.

*very* few of those are sold, but there will always be a couple of
luddites stuck in the past.

meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on to digital because it's
worlds better than film ever was.

The world didn't move to digital because it was better, it was easier
and you could take a whole bunch of photos before changing the storage
medium.

--

Stephen

We could learn a lot from crayons... Some are sharp, some are pretty and some are dull. Some have weird names, and all are different colors, but they all have to live in the same box.

On 2014-06-23 13:41:14 +0000, Whisky-dave said:


If I could emulate that if I reach 91.
https://db.tt/6Wjcrfz9

Handsome guy and his pretty lady. Must be the good living! :-)

SD on the hat I wonder what that stands for

San Diego,

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Stephen
wrote:

With digital, the files would be lost once the person loses interest
in keeping the files up to date & accessible. Assuming the storage
medium even lasts. Digital needs a cpu, software, a display and
something to read the medium the digital file is on.

nonsense. film needs low humidity storage and there are no backups.
once they're damaged, they're *gone*.

The recommended storage conditions for digital media is the same. Once
digital files are damaged, they're gone also.

nonsense.

first of all, storing digital images does not need low humidity or out
of sunlight as does film. where do you come up with such idiocy?

typical hard drives can be stored between -40º to 65º c. film would
never last in those conditions.

So all those photographs found in the Antarctica didn't survive...

what photographs are those?

*lots* of film photos have been lost, and probably more than digital
because most people don't take care of their negatives, which means the
prints (if they still have those) are the only copies.

second, digital can have unlimited 100% identical backup so even if
there is damage, there is never any loss...

If there is damage, it isn't a 100% identical copy.

if there is damage you trash it and use one of the backups. no big
deal. that's what backups are *for*.

plus, the chances of a non-100% copy are *extremely* low anyway.

you're grasping at straws.

meanwhile, countless negatives and slides have been lost to mold, fire,
flooding and even just fading. you don't even need to copy it. it
deteriorates on its own!

You can 'backup' film to another film.

not without a loss, you can't.

*any* copy of a film image has a generational loss. this *cannot* be
avoided

not so with digital, where every copy is 100% identical to the original
and they can be in more than one place too.

Practically all digital cameras default to saving in jpeg, it suffers
from generational loss every time its saved after editing.

easy solution, don't resave the original jpeg and better yet, adopt a
non-destructive workflow which is trivial to do with modern software.

you're also ignoring the fact that there is a guaranteed generational
loss for film.

digital will outlast any physical media, with unlimited numbers of
backups that can be anywhere in the world, so no risk of natural
disaster damaging anything.

Who has multiple backups all over the world?

lots of people do.

anyone who uses any of the cloud storage services or photo sharing
services has multiple redundant backups scattered across multiple data
centers.

Great idea to backup to places that can disappear at any time.

google, apple, amazon, yahoo, etc. aren't going anywhere any time soon.

it's also not the only copy, so even in the highly unlikely event that
one does, it won't make any difference because there will be other
copies elsewhere, such as on your server at home.

plus, they would give a warning before disappearing, at which point you
migrate to a new service. no big deal.

you're ignoring what would happen film is lost to fire, flood, etc.
there is no backup and they're *gone*.

A number of cloud storage sites have gone offline, like FreeDiskSpace
and MegaUpload. Some of those cloud services delete your data if you
don't access them often enough.

again, it doesn't make one bit of difference if they go away because
it's not the only copy.

Hard drives don't survive not being used too well. Flash drives will
lose data after several years. Burnable CD/DVD/Blu-ray deteriorate in
a few years, the re-writable erase even faster.

that's only a problem if you have one copy.

since digital can have unlimited backups, there's never a reason to
have only one copy.

Better hope all those backups stay readable and you have verified that
the files are identical.

only one copy needs to be readable.

furthermore, backups can be automatic so the user doesn't have to do
anything at all.

film doesn't survive not being stored well either. humidity, mold, etc.
will destroy film, if fading hasn't.

Then you have
corruption/damage caused by moving the digital images and in the
future converting them to a new file format since the original isn't
or won't be usable.

nonsense. there is no corruption or damage in copying an image and the
original will almost always be usable.

where do you come up with this crap?

I had a pc that worked fine, no errors, no problems, and the os never
crashed due to memory errors. Except when copying large files, the
copies were never the same. It turned out that a memory module was
bad. 99% of PCs still don't use any error correcting for onboard
memory, so it's a problem that can still occur.

copies can be verified after writing, which would have caught it.

that's not a flaw of digital, that's just that you bought a ****ty pc
with low quality parts and used ****ty software that didn't verify
anything.

you're also ignoring that film can get lost or damaged when sent out
for processing. often, negatives get scratched in the automated
machinery.

How would you view an old PIC file? You'll need
to know what computer and OS it used to even begin to figure what
format it's in.

if the format is documented, then it won't be a problem.

Which version of the format do you use? It was a common extension for
pictures years ago and some software companies kept the format they
used a trade secret. Don't forget that a storage medium in use today
may not be around in the future. For example the Mavica camera use a
floppy, no pc is sold with any floppy drive today. In 100 years, will
there be any around that are usable, assuming the floppies themselves
haven't rotted away. It's the same with hard drives, how many are
still using MFM/RLL or IDE/EIDE?

none of that matters one bit.

nobody kept their images on stacks of floppies anyway. more grasping at
straws.

and it's trivial to migrate to new storage any time the older one fills
up. not a big deal.

and you're ignoring that a lot of people don't keep film in archival
storage so the chances of that fading or being destroyed by mold is
actually quite high.

jpeg will be readable forever, as will tiff and just about all raw
formats since there's an open source raw converter. yet another bogus
claim.

Only film has PROVEN longevity. A B&W silver print or negative
processed to archival standards will last over 100 years.

complete nonsense. film degrades without doing anything and if there's
any damage, such as mold or water damage, game over.

digital will last forever, not just 100 years.

So, all those negatives and prints from the 1800s are all gone?

lots of them certainly are.

if you think every single negative and print from the 1800s still
exists and is in perfect shape (no fading, fogging, mold, etc.), you're
smoking something very potent.

What digital is stored on won't last 100 years without any human
intervention before the medium deteriorates or becomes obsolete.

no need for human intervention since backups can happen automatically,
without the user needing to do anything special.

Remember floppies, zip drives, SyQuest drives, cassette tapes, QIC
tapes, and SmartMedia cards? They're not made anymore, so how many
photos are lost on those?

doesn't matter since there never is a single copy.

plus, nobody kept photos on smartmedia cards anyway. they copied them
to a hard drive.

Film doesn't require special equipment to view, you can see the image
on the film with your eyeball.

only if you don't mind postage stamp sized images, and for negatives,
they'll be reversed.

120/200 and 4x5 aren't postage size.

4x5 might not be, but how many people shoot 4x5? not many.

you're all over the map trying to justify a dying medium

It's not dead.

it's dead. that doesn't mean zero, it means it's now niche, with a
*tiny* percentage of the market.

film cameras are all but history, film sales are a tiny fraction of
what it once was, kodak filed for bankruptcy and camera stores whose
major source of revenue was photo processing are gone.

plus, it's a *lot* easier to teach and learn digital photography than
it is film.

The only difference between the film and digital, is what's needed to
get the final output. Well, there is another, electricity isn't
needed to take a photo on film...

the days of mechanical cameras are *long* gone.

Holga cameras are still being made and sold. The same is true with
the large format cameras and their mechanical shuttered lenses.

*very* few of those are sold, but there will always be a couple of
luddites stuck in the past.

meanwhile the rest of the world has moved on to digital because it's
worlds better than film ever was.

The world didn't move to digital because it was better, it was easier
and you could take a whole bunch of photos before changing the storage
medium.

the world absolutely did move to digital because it was better than
film, easier than film, more flexible than film, cheaper than film and
because digital cameras are *much* better than film cameras ever were.

there is nothing that film can do that digital can't. digital has left
film in the dust.