U of S | Mailing List Archive | alt-photo-process-l | Re: Kodachrome/mold

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)