Re: Kodachrome/mold
From: Don Bryant <dsbryant@bellsouth.net> Subject: RE: Kodachrome/mold Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:09:13 -0400 > The intent of my post wasn't to bash Kodak. That, I understand. Frankly, I don't care about people who bash Kodak anyway. And they certainly do not. The thing is, I'm more interested in future-oriented discussion and not looking back for things we lost forever. > But it was really intended to be a lament about Kodachrome. I totally understand that. But I also feel that I've heard that a bit too many times. > All of this digital vs. film - film vs. digital stuff has been hashed and > rehashed ad nauseam on the net. Let's not repeat it here, please. I think that same thing goes to Kodachrome or anything Kodak. I personally think that Kodak has continued Kodachrome longer than they would've, based purely on the sales. I'm happy it has been available this long. You disagree, and I know that. However, I do not see many people offering rational analysis of strength of film photography and discussing how we can best utilize the superior traditional technology. This, I will continue and I won't quit. The purpose is not to change the evolution of film technology, but to influence the people who are constantly seeing and hearing about digital alternatives. They could use extra encouragement to use film and rational reasoning of why they should. My concern is that the investors are looking at silver. With the petroleum price hike, gold went up, and silver is now again a poor man's gold. The energy cost is already tough, and this is an additional concern. Photographic industry has been pretty energy efficient, but the ingredient costs went up, and there is not much margin to eat up that loss, nor the room to improve the energy efficiency enough to save money. -- Ryuji Suzuki "Strange how people who suffer together have stronger connections than people who are most content." (Bob Dylan, Brownsville Girl, 1986)
|