Re: Kodak - Slightly Off Topic...but Only Slightly.


Adam Maas <mykroft@...>
 

Beckert, Shawn wrote:
Guys,
This article is taken from USA Today. You might want to take a look:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-08-25-kodak-cuts_x.htm
The freight car connection should be obvious. If things keep going the way they
are, there might not *be* a Bob's Photo in a few years. Or John C. LaRue, or Jay
Williams. etc. Not to be Chicken Little (hey, there's an idea for a movie), but
it looks like we better start buying photographs like crazy or we find someone who still makes printing paper (and chemicals) and work out a deal.
At some point we'll be forced to accept digitally printed photos. I already have some, and I'm just not impressed.Unless the quality of digital printing improves drastically (and who knows, maybe it will), I think we're in for a dry spell as
far as this facet of our hobby goes.
This is not meant to stir a debate (which will get Mike upset), but I think people here should be aware of what's coming. Not a pretty picture - no pun intended.
Shawn Beckert
If you're getting your photos printed at a minilab, you're already getting digital prints. All the modern minilabs scan the negs and then print digitally to photo paper. This side of the business is not declining much, but kodak isn't as big a player as it used to be, with Fuji leading and Noritsu and Agfa also playing. The major change here is simply in volume, most folks now come in and print 75+ digital shots rather than a roll at a time.

Film however is dead from a mainstream perspective. It will be the domain of the artist and purist within a coupel of years (From a new sales perspective, film cameras essentially died in 2004, the P&S market is gone and the SLR market is dying).

-Adam

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.