Not a prophet? If I recall correctly, prophets have an unhappy history of getting killed (usually by stones) when they bear news that is not well-received in certain quarters.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
We'd prefer to keep you around a bit longer to impart some of your emulison-making knowlege. So please don't go this route any time soon!
Last edited by aldevo; 04-09-2007 at 10:03 PM. Click to view previous post history.
A very substantial portion of the free metal mercury that enters the environment is as a result of degassing from the Earth's crusts and oceans.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Much more information is available here if you're curious:
A prophet is often not believed amongst his own people and is often stoned.
Originally Posted by aldevo
I hope I am an exception to this.
Yes, though it may seem otherwise when folks who don't have the depth of background you have try to counter your obervations.
Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
Indeed, living in a large city I can claim to knowing several people who consider themselves prophets and are often stoned...though that has little to do with the casting of rocks.
Well this will not only affect my job, but also one of things I truly love doing. This thread totally added to an already slightly crappy day. I was so excited to get my Phillips 8x10 that I am on the waiting list for, but after reading Photo Engineer's factual information and predictions he has made by it, I am honestly not nearly as excited.............. I am worried and feel hopeless............
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I also hope to still have my job in the lab I work at for the next 20 years, assuming Im still there by then. Its hard to say how this will all effect photography down the road.
I hope you are right, but I have my doubts. Over the past 15 years there has been a rapid transformation in how films are financed by Hollywood. Bottom line: the studios don't do it any more - they reach out to the CitiGroups, the GE Capitals, etc. And I suspect that they want to contain costs wherever they can...
Originally Posted by Edimilson
Given the general tastes of the movie-watching public in the USA, I'm inclined to believe that the advantage that film has over digital in cinematic image quality could go unappreciated...
Of course, there is also a great deal more motion picture film shot than the mass-market distributed stuff we see in the Cineplexes.
I don't quite understand the point of these threads. I think everyone pretty much understands the dire situation with regards to traditional materials. There is nothing any of us can do about it. The choices are pretty obvious. You either buy a large supply of film and paper and freeze it or you continue to use materials as always and when the day comes they are no longer available you move onto something else. I can't afford to buy a lifetime supply of materials so I buy film and paper as I use it and when the day comes it is either no longer available or to expensive for my budget I will learn collodion so I can still use my 8x10 and 11x14 cameras (lest they become very expensive door stops) and get a nice DSLR and Epson printer.
For me the possible or probable demise of analogue photography is not worth losing sleep over anymore. I still think film and paper will be available from someone, somewhere for a long time. The questions will be, can I afford such a specialty product, and will it have the quality I am used to?
"Fundamentally I think we need to rediscover a non-ironic world"
A good post and certainly a reasonable viewpoint.
Originally Posted by Jim Chinn
The present concerns surrounding the continued availability of analog photographic materials should not be ignored by those presently using DSLRs and inkjet printers. Or those that may turn to them in the future.
It has been opined by some and with increasing volume of late (e.g. Dirck Halstead) that dedicated still photography is going to be extinct in a couple decades as it is simply ridden over roughshod by larger trends in the convergence of consumer electronics. I can remember an article in a British photographic magazine about two years that queried product planners from Canon, Olympus, Sony, and Nikon where the digital imaging market was going and - with the exception of the Nikon rep - they left me with the impression that pictorial photography would be recuced to the harvest of single images from video cameras in the not-so-distant future. And all agreed that the reflection print was just about dead in their estimation.
We all think of Pentax, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, and Nikon as camera manufacturers but Canon's largest business is office equipment (e.g. copiers), Fuji still makes the lion share of its profits off television production equipment, Olympus' core business has as much to do with microscopy and scientific instruments as photography, and Pentax is, increasingly, a manufacturer of medical imaging diagnostic equipment.
Yes, I know that people have been predicting the demise of still, pictorial photography since the advent of afforeable video recorders in the late 70s. This time, though, the threat is different.
So, increasingly, the threat I perceive posed by digital is something larger than just the substitution of the memory card for film. It seems to have evolved into an assualt on all parts of what I perceive as the photographic process from visualization, to output, to presentation.
I'm not sure anybody saw that coming. Let's hope for a backlash!
Last edited by aldevo; 04-10-2007 at 12:48 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Don't get too depresed! If there's one thing APUG has convinced me of, it's that there is an increasing number of people who recongize the issues the market faces and that some retailers are getting increasingly involved with manufacturers to ensure their products find a market.
Originally Posted by Jordke
So, yes, there are challenges ahead...but the outlook isn't hopeless.