• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Thom Hogan on Kodak

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.
 

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

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.
 
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.
 

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?