Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
Bullshit, the manufacturers of modern digital cameras are well in on and okay with all of this. They absolutely love this arrangement of continual release/obsolete/buy-again.

So yes, I can blame my "fellow" photographers (they're not really my fellows), for enabling that bad cycle to continue, and I can also blame the consumers of photography who don't give a damn one way or another (but who will invariably notice something missing given enough time).

I'm talking, right now, analog right now, with experienced printers and lab people - NOT generic consumers. Dude this is APUG, not johnny-consumer-find-me-a-lab-for-my-kodak-gold.com. The entire site is dedicated to the process, materials, and DIY attitude. Get that through your head. You're preaching to the absolutely wrong audience.
Built-in obsolescence was as much a part of film photography as digital. How many orphaned formats are there for film? How many crappy P&S's were made for 135? 110? APS? Orphaned lens mounts? The list goes on. Kodak and Fuji ruthlessly changed box designs to make consumers believe the formula had changed, when, in reality, no chemistry changes ever took place. They liked to make customers feel that the new box was better than the old. It's a for of marketing obsolescence,preying on consumer insecurity.

Nothing has changed there.

People left analog for the cost and convenience of digital. The whole point of economics and consumer decision-makig is to make the most out of scarce resources.

Nothing has changed there.

Experienced printers and lab people were the first to leave because of the same economic principle I just spoke to above. The ones most qualified to judge quality in a commercial setting left for digital faster than the hobby crowd which is mostly what APUG is. This includes the vast majority of the glossy art set and the mass printers, like magazines and advertising.

The generic consumer is, and has always been, the mass market necessary to justify the mass production of roll and cartridge film. In order for there to be a top-tier of "experienced printers and lab people" everyone has to start somewhere lower on the ladder, usually working in a lab cranking out Brownie films all the way up to mini-labs, and the teeny, tiny home development market surviving on the economically viable remains. George Eastman got that. There is no yin without the yang. The few who love analog photography as an art form have always relied on the mass market to subsidize production. Vernacular photography gave you your roll and cartridge film market. Silver printing was the basis of Eastman's "we do the rest". This is THE business case study of Kodak and film photography overall. It is the core of the business model and the ONLY one that has ever existed.

Nothing has changed there.

If you're going to defend the legacy of his original invention, at least try and understand the economic principles supporting it.