Re: [Leica] Ramblings

[David Guidry <Dave-Sherry@worldnet.att.net>]

Yes Dave this is true. Also Kodak and the others saw an opportunity to get
back photofinishing volume with APS. The APS equipment is far too expensive
for most small independent mini-labs. These same mini-labs began to take an
awful lot of rolls away from Kodak in the early 1980's. I believe the
biggies wanted the business back.

Dave Guidry

Dave Munroe wrote:

> Jeff S wrote:
>
> > Here, in an easy-to-delete, bandwidth-conserving form, are a number of
> > Leica-related thoughts I've had
>
> A great article, Jeff, spot-on!
>
> > To Bracket Or Not To Bracket?
> > Film is cheap--or is it? When total costs, including environmental
> > ones, are taken into account, the issue becomes thornier.
>
> Considering that at least 99% of film being used and processed today
> is in the point-and-shoot and disposable camera market, any restraint
> by amateurs and professionals in regard to bracketing is a very, very
> small percentage of overall film use.  I say this not to dismiss the
> issue of wasting film or to encourage this "technique", but rather to
> point out where the focus should be placed.  Also, it is in the best
> interests of Kodak, Fuji, et al., to promote the growth of this market.
> APS was created primarily to boost film sales (similarly, the so-called
> "panoramic" mode in APS was created to encourage sales of higher-cost
> wide prints: relatively few snapshooters chose in the past to have
> enlargements made once they'd received their prints, so the decision is
> now made at the time of exposure: an easy and painless decision for the
> snapshooter and a more profitable one for the lab).
>
> > ... bracketing seems a brute-force substitute for
> > precise metering technique.
>
> Yes.  I'm astonished that bracketing is now an expected mode on many
> cameras today.
>
>