Re: HEY, KODAK! Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]

Richard Lahrson (tripspud@hooked.net)
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 00:42:51 -0700

• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
• Next message: Richard Lahrson: "Re: [Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]]"
• Previous message: Andy Darlow: "Re: First try at Carbon printing."
• In reply to: Judy Seigel: "Re: First try at Carbon printing."
• Next in thread: Smieglitz@aol.com: "Re: Re: HEY, KODAK! Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]"

Michael Keller wrote:
>
> BTW, if Kodak, Fuji, Nikon and Canon thought film was disappearing in ten
> years they would not have invested the tons of money they did in the
> Advanced Photo System.

Hi!

     But look at all the formats Kodak has introduced over the years:
Instamatic, Disc cameras, 110 format, Koadak Instants even plus all the
old roll film sizes like 127 and sheet film sizes like 3 x 4.

     All these and others that do not come to mind at the moment had
a finite existence, and many represented substantial development costs.
I doubt if APS will live forever or much more than ten years.

                        Cheers,

                                                Rich Lahrson
                                                tripspud@hooked.net

• Next message: Richard Lahrson: "Re: [Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]]"
• Previous message: Andy Darlow: "Re: First try at Carbon printing."
• In reply to: Judy Seigel: "Re: First try at Carbon printing."
• Next in thread: Smieglitz@aol.com: "Re: Re: HEY, KODAK! Re: Digital is not *easier* [Was: Too much equipment]"

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Oct 28 1999 - 21:39:32