Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]


Steve Shapiro (sgshiya@redshift.com)
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:44:26 -0700


Subject: Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]

> S. Shapiro wrote
> <Big Snip>
> >It is just this group who can make the difference. In fact, I bet if
> >Sullivan got pledges and deposits from us, they'd make Pan XX again --
> >$8,000 worth at up dated prices pr.
> >
> >Go make pictures, use digital, have fun. I'm dead serious; and you
> >mentioned print: Going from digital into print is exactly what it was
made
> >for, in my view; but NOW it becomes aparent ... if we don't stand up for
> >what we want the big companies will roll over us.
>
> >Tools are what's needed to use, people are used to being needed.
> >, Carmel, CA
>
> Yeah Steve, you are right, to a point. Try and get the great YELLOW (Now
> meaning chicken) Father to produce Matrix for dye transfer. Kodabromide.
> etc etc.
>
> I think we need to support the small concerns that have the guts to
> reinvent Kodak's wheel and survive on making a living rather than making
> mlillions' livings for them. Kodak could give a #$%^ about us. and most
of
> us have spent a small fortune individually with them either directly, or
> through an employer. I just don't buy the idea they will keep
> manufacturing product as long as there is a "distributor quantity"
involved.
>
> I wish the situation were otherwise.
>
> Michael
>
I'm glad you mentioned dye transfer; because through this list I learned
there's a company making the matrix from Kodak's patent, as we speak. It's
in Texas and it supports excatly what I suggest. Band together and buy in
groups.

Kind of brings to mind what the Harvard Professor, Timothy Learey suggested
by talking about tribes.

S. Shapiro



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:31