Thom Hogan on Kodak

[eddie]

I think we can all agree that the price of doing traditional photography will rise, and our film/paper options will decrease. The real cost of this is in our shortcomings. I'd suggest that, rather than bemoan the losses (or, conversely, throw dirt on the grave) of analog, we all get a lot friggin' better at what we do, so we can get the image we want using a lot less film, paper and chemistry.

 

[CGW]

I'm not stressed, I read these threads not so much for information as much as watch-this-train-wreck entertainment.

The better, less obscure products are often the most used therefore purchased. So to avoid stress, one only needs to prepare for what the worst case scenario could be in regards to product longevity...per product. Most of the more talented shooters of analog product I know keep it simple, they don't dabble in everything then piss and moan when one out of over 100 films gets nixed. Instead, they invest a few grand into product and supporting product and move onto to more important things like shooting, printing, marketing, networking.

Changes in the larger scheme of analog products have set a lot of us into motion in terms of making decisions as to what the most important products are for our needs. If one of these products is prone to be on the chopping block, we simply either replace it with another product or stock up, no big deal and certainly no stress....

So you can either keep typing the keyboard in a manner that would make a jazz organist gasp or get on with using the products we have and make some fine images happen.

I've made my choice, obviously you have too...:munch:

Doubt dedicated Ektachrome shooters, following your logic, would take much comfort from this "advice."

 

[Aristophanes]

I get a giggle that guys like Thom need ever more "technologically sophisticated" digital cameras to photograph with.
Strange. The most beautiful photographic works I have seen have been created with Wistas, Linhofs and the big guns of medium format, Hasselblad, Pentax, Bronica. Clearly he has a blinkered view of what photography is about, and that applies to all those sucking up to the next best/greatest/technologically advanced thing to achieve what the wiser amongst us have been turning out for decades.

Aristophanes, do you ever get out and photograph, use a camera? You are very, veery negatively geared on your discussion of film. I don't think we want to hear about what an economist thinks of film. It's what photographers can do with it that matters. Now please get up, go out and photograph, then come back and talk about that.

I have as many images in the Gallery here as you do.

The title of this General Discussion Forum is "Industry News". I pay attention to where I post, not just what I post. Others should to. That's why there are titles and a hierarchy of discussion options.

Thom Hogan writes that "film is in jeopardy". I agree. It is negative. All local labs near me have gone away. My Fuji contact tells me there hasn't been a single new mini-lab machine installed anywhere in North America in almost 2 years. He's not even sure the fabrication facility is doing more than churning out a few spare parts here and there and may permanently close.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

The title of this General Discussion Forum is "Industry News". I pay attention to where I post, not just what I post. Others should to. That's why there are titles and a hierarchy of discussion options.
[...]

I suggest that should read the other way around. Many people here are up to their pussy bows hearing rants about "film is in jeopardy". So what!? Let it come when it is due, rather than an "Industry News" troll 2 steps behind wielding a branding iron.

 

[Aristophanes]

I suggest that should read the other way around. Many people here are up to their pussy bows hearing rants about "film is in jeopardy". So what!? Let it come when it is due, rather than an "Industry News" troll 2 steps behind wielding a branding iron.

It's just a discussion about the economics of film photography. You have to be the one who is overly emotionally attached to start name calling. How about just sticking to the facts?