Re: [photo-3d] Re: Digital & the demise of film

[Brian Reynolds <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>]

John A. Rupkalvis wrote:
> From: "Brian Reynolds" <reynolds@xxxxxxxxx>
> > At the most recent PMA Kodak introduced the new single sheet Tmax
> > 100 Readyload packets.  Not only a film product, but a 4x5 film
> > product.
> 
> Not according to the trades.  If they did, it was certainly hidden,
> not noticed by the reviewers.  In this month's issue of one of the
> major graphic arts industry magazines, there was a feature editorial
> about the lack of film products at PMA in which it was specifically
> pointed out that Kodak had no film products there, only digital
> imaging equipment.  I wish now that I had saved the issue, so that I
> could quote directly word-for-word.  I get so many such publications
> that I usually discard them as soon as I have read them.

On February 11, 2001 Kodak issued a press release
<URL:http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20010211-03.shtml>
to coincide with their presence at PMA announcing single sheet TMax
100 Readyloads.  Steve Simmons (publisher of View Camera magazine and
Camera Arts magazine) accidently let the cat out of the bag on
February 5 in a posting to rec.photo.equipment.large-format when he
mentioned the announcement without realizing that it wasn't for
immediate release.

I'm not too surprised that a graphic arts magazine didn't mention the
Readyload release.  The graphic arts and printing industries have gone
almost completely digital, and digital is selling magazines.

I know I read about the Readyload release in the PMA coverage of a
general photography magazine (as opposed to a graphic arts or large
format magazine), but I must have tossed that issue because I can't
find it.  (I only keep View Camera, Camera Arts and Photo Techniques
USA, and buy others if I'm desperate for something to read on the
subway.)  I was actually surprised that the magazine (not View Camera)
bothered mentioning a 4x5 product.

> Also, I do not want to give the impression that I personally feel
> that the demise of film is imminent.

I did not mean to imply that you (or for that matter most on this
list) were one of the doomsayers.  I'm sorry if I gave that
impression.

> Only that it will soon be much less convenient to buy certain film
> products, and to a certain extent already is.
[tale of woe at Ritz snipped]

Unfortunately it doesn't matter how great your product is if the
retailers don't stock it and don't have knowledgeable sales staff.

By the way, I've heard plenty of horror stories about Ritz and Wolf
sales staff.

-- 
Brian Reynolds                  | "Dee Dee!  Don't touch that button!"
reynolds@xxxxxxxxx              | "Oooh!"
http://www.panix.com/~reynolds  |    -- Dexter and Dee Dee
NAR# 54438                      |       "Dexter's Laboratory"

 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/