Re: [photo-3d] Re: Re: Films days are numbered??

[Ron Beck <rbeck@xxxxxxxx>]

Well, let's see, in the 43 years I've been around, I've had a box camera
that took 620 film, a Kodak Brownie that took 127 (?) roll film and
small "pop-in" flash bulbs, a "cartridge" camera that took the big film
cartridges (120?) and the "new" no-battery-needed flash cubes, a 110
camera with the "newer-still" flip flash, a disc camera with built in
flash, a Rolleiflex 35M (35mm full manual), a Konica FT-1, a Nikonos 4A,
a Kodak Stereo and a VM Personal.  Of all those formats, only the 35mm
is still widely available.  Even the 110 cartridges are getting scarce
even though many places have 110 "toy" cameras available.

And, now that I can take my digital storage media to a Walmart to have
prints made, I may seriously look into a digital camera.

However, I still enjoy that "old fashioned" stereo photography even if
it is hard to track down the equipment to use. :-) :-)

Ron

Mike Kersenbrock wrote:

> A better comparison of digital replacing film would be
> some new film replacing an old one.  The old one goes away
> completely, and this is something that has happened a lot and
> often.  Digital isn't a new format of film, it replaces film
> itself (even more, it's a new photography paradigm).
> 
> But I still think it'll take at least 20 years for reasons
> I mentioned previously.
> 
> Mike K.