RE: [Leica] Film is not dead!

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

While I am certainly one of the people who believe that digital is both
the present and future of photography, I also believe that film of one
sort or another will be around for the bulk of our life-times -
depending on our ages - and I hope to keep shooting it for part of the
professional work I do. However - I don't think the fact that there are
more than one billion film cameras out there tells us much of anything.
In the first place, am I not correct in believing that disposable
cameras are counted in the billion cameras? And, even if I'm wrong about
that, once a camera is sold, it is "out there in the world;" that
doesn't mean it continues to be used - it may well be sitting on a
shelf, supplanted by whatever digital it's owner has purchased.

BTW - Driving by a big Ritz here in Brookline yesterday I noted all
sorts of window signage advertising the fact that they are a 'digital
photo center,' can produce prints from your cards, cads, etc., can give
you black and whites, etc. etc. So owning or not owning a computer has
really become irrelevant, in terms of the digital photo 'revolution.'

B. D.

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of
gregj.lorenzo@shaw.ca
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 10:15 AM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Film is not dead!


Hi Peter,

I suspect that certain of Kodak's films like Tri-X are very profitable
and that if Kodak, as we know it today, was to radically change in the
future their more popular films would continue with or without a yellow
box.

There are, by some estimates, more than one billion film cameras out in
the world and that makes for lots and lots of film consumers!

Regards,

Greg

 
> Hi, Greg!  I was happy to read it, too.  We have all been subject
> to an 
> awful lot of prosedigitalytization lately.  Some of it is real--
> digital has 
> some wonderful benefits, especially in terms of speed, instant 
> feedback, 
> volume, tweakability, smoothness (in DSLRs, anyway) and lack of 
> cost of 
> "consumables."  For many sports and spot news photographers, and 
> for 
> catalog photography, digital is the only economical way to go. For 
> snapshooters, it's good enough.
> 
> But a lot of what we hear is hype designed to convince the lemming
> consumers that they will not be whole 21st century human beings if 
> they 
> don't chuck all those antique film cameras and go 100% digital 
> RIGHT 
> NOW!  In this respect "digital" joins things like cell phones, 
> PDAs, fax 
> machines, PCs, Cabbage Patch dolls, hula hoops and oat bran as 
> Stuff That 
> All With-It People Gotta Have.
> 
> Then there's the "I'm superior to, or cooler than thou"
> phenomenon.  It's 
> mostly espoused by:
> 
> 1. Computer geeks who believe that anything in regular production
> is 
> already "legacy."
> 2. Free market fundamentalists who delight in comparing the makers 
> of film 
> to the manufacturers of buggy whips in 1905.
> 
> (Reminder to self: I have Orson Welles' "The Magnificent
> Ambersons" on 
> tape, gotta watch it sometime).
> 
> The Japanese manufacturers' livelihood depends on riding these
> trends 
> correctly.  It's interesting to read their predictions that film's 
> sales 
> decline will level off soon, as will digital's steep rise.  And 
> that while 
> there's going to be an awful lot of digital around, there will 
> still be 
> enough of a film market that they are going to keep designing and 
> producing 
> new medium and high-end film cameras.
> 
> Also interesting to see the difference between Canon and Nikon's
> take on 
> sensor size and lenses designed specifically for digital.
> 
> Anyway, I suspect that we will all be able to find film for quite
> a 
> while.  And if Kodak bags it, Fuji will be happy to take up the 
> slack.  While I love Tri-X and Supra, Neopan 400 and Fuji Press 
> ain't bad, 
> either.
> 
> The digital camera I really want isn't made yet.  What comes close
> is 
> either too big and heavy, too expensive, too clunky to shoot Leica-
> style 
> and fast, or not good enough in image quality. I'm eying that 
> Panasonic 
> DC1, with a Leica lens but without the red dot. It might be the 
> one.  Or 
> not.  We'll see.  Olympus did pretty good quality with a 2/3 
> sensor in the 
> E-10 and E-20.  Maybe Panaleica will, too.
> 
> In the meantime, I'm happy to play with with my used, cheaply- bought
> Coolpix. And shoot my Leicas for anything serious.  You can buy an 
> awful 
> lot of Tri-X for the cost of any DSR that does low-light anywhere 
> near as 
> well.  And if you want dynamic range, negative film is still where 
> it's at.
> 
> Now, if someone would only invent film that scans itself while I
> sleep, and 
> presents me with dustless TIFFs in the morning. . .
> 
> --Peter Klein
> Seattle
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-
> users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html