Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2007/10/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In a message dated 10/9/2007 3:02:46 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, lug-request@leica-users.org writes: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/business/09film.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slog in --------------------------------------------------------------- The NYT story said a few things that are sobering: First that comparatively few digital prints are being made. Second, that film sales are plummeting and that fewer stores are offering film processing. There seems to be a dichotomy here. What's the point of spending $hundred, or thousands on digital cameras if the product is declining? What's the object of using any camera if no tangible images are produced? Virtual images are ephemeral, as we all know. However, everyone seems to overlook one inescapeable advantage of film: NEGATIVES. In the heat of digital people tend to forget that fact. Five years from now if someone asked you to reprint a specific digital image, do you suppose you could find the file? I doubt it. I worked out an elaborate way of cataloging digital files, but I can't guarantee that the CD's that store them will function 10 or even 5 years hence. I do know that my negatives -- even filed by date alone -- will reproduce a particular print made even 50 or 100 years down the line. Sure, I love to use the D70 and my Oly 5050 digitals. But I think I know when and why to use them. Besides, I always have a film camera with me -- usually my Leica CL with the 40mm lens -- as backup. One of the problems is that Kodak doesn't know how to re-advertise and remarket film, by emphasizing the virtues of the negative. Bob ************************************** See what's new at http://www.aol.com