Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 05-16-2019   #81
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
Instax is a red herring. There are no less than a dozen Fujifilm Instax cameras on Shopgoodwill.com at any one time.
https://www.fujifilm.com/innovation/...ements/instax/

"In 2015, Fujifilm sold over 5 million units of the instant camera"

So the dozen available on Goodwill's auction site means...what exactly, compared to millions and millions sold?
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #82
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,887
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
https://www.fujifilm.com/innovation/...ements/instax/

"In 2015, Fujifilm sold over 5 million units of the instant camera"

So the dozen available on Goodwill's auction site means...what exactly, compared to millions and millions sold?
It means there are far more charity shops than just Goodwill that have Instax cameras in their bins. It also means that the somewhat unreliable cameras may break and the user may never come back to them after they throw it away. Add to that the fact that Instax doesn't go into ANY currently existing traditional film camera, so saying that it is film is a red herring at best. There is an emulsion, yes; which needs to be coated in a film production lab, yes. But the commonalities stop there. You can't now nor could you ever put Polaroid or FP100c into a film camera without the proper accessory back, if available.
So if Fujifilm keeps selling Instax, good for them, maybe they can funnel some that money over into keeping traditional film production going, and hopefully bring out some new or reissue old emulsions, not gut their catalog as has been done.
Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #83
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,696
I’m am glad for instax as a proud Fuji digital customer. I liked their film but haven’t shot film in 5 years maybe. Oh well, the digital work flow allows me to be a efficient amateur. What limited time I have needs to be used making photos, not wrestling with film. I learned on film... learned color on Fuji. But if they stop making all of their films, someone else will make something else. I don’t get my feelings hurt as long as someone is making something I can use to do the photography I like.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #84
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,044
I'm still finding Kodak C-41 to be very different and more pleasing than digital. Well, maybe Ricoh GRII and III. And some of Olympus .
But Fuji... you really have to learn a lot to get decent color from its film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #85
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
So if Fujifilm keeps selling Instax, good for them, maybe they can funnel some that money over into keeping traditional film production going, and hopefully bring out some new or reissue old emulsions, not gut their catalog as has been done.
Phil Forrest
Well I agree with that.

I still don't get your point otherwise. A few Instax cameras in charity shops, so what. I know a lot of folks shooting them exclusively and have eschewed their phones (anecdotal, but no more so than seeing a few at Goodwill). They are selling well and that's what I see.

And yes, I wouldn't mind seeing FP100 or preferably 3000B come back.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #86
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
Well I agree with that.

I still don't get your point otherwise. A few Instax cameras in charity shops, so what. I know a lot of folks shooting them exclusively and have eschewed their phones (anecdotal, but no more so than seeing a few at Goodwill). They are selling well and that's what I see.

And yes, I wouldn't mind seeing FP100 or preferably 3000B come back.


It must be something kincky.


Those instaxes are collecting dust everywhere, almost at any store. Yet, I have seen people using these cameras in public maybe four times in ten years. I walked this week from customer site to go station and all I have seen was DSLRs... Predominately in hands of younger people...

Oh, wait. I'm in Canada. Most of the time, if you want instax outside here, you have to sit on it before it hatches.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #87
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,273
I see lots of Instax prints on Instagram - taken with their phone!
I hardly see DSLRs out and about. Phones everywhere.
From my perspective, phones have not only destroyed the P&S market, but also the low-end DSLR market. Other than photo hobbyists, there is no reason to bother. Phones will get a better image for most because it's simple and just makes a photograph without a bewildering number of dials, menus, etc.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #88
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,044
Followed by you logic, nobody should buy instax, because it have next to zero quality.

DSLRS have green box. Press one button, picture is taken. But it is not about simplicity of taking picture. It is how simple it is to dump it on the net. Phone will facepuke it instantly.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #89
Corran
Registered User
 
Corran is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 1,273
There are many different market segments.
Parents snapping photos of their kids? iPhone. Younger generations interested in travel / physical prints they can hold? Instax. It's quite an ingenious system - convenience of digital + instant "Polaroid" just like the "old days." Hint: they don't care about "quality." That's for the old camera enthusiasts.
I'm sure we can cue the "hipster" name-calling soon.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #90
Huss
Registered User
 
Huss is offline
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 7,050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
There are many different market segments.
Parents snapping photos of their kids? iPhone. Younger generations interested in travel / physical prints they can hold? Instax. It's quite an ingenious system - convenience of digital + instant "Polaroid" just like the "old days." Hint: they don't care about "quality." That's for the old camera enthusiasts.
I'm sure we can cue the "hipster" name-calling soon.
Quality? What's that?
Robert Pirsig to the courtesy phone, Robert Pirsig..
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2019   #91
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huss View Post
Quality?........ Robert Pirsig..
Interesting and appropriate allusion to Robert Pirsig. That about sums it up, re: qualities of cameras, quality of life.

Anyway, nice one, Huss.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #92
Skiff
Registered User
 
Skiff is offline
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran View Post
https://www.fujifilm.com/innovation/...ements/instax/

"In 2015, Fujifilm sold over 5 million units of the instant camera"

So the dozen available on Goodwill's auction site means...what exactly, compared to millions and millions sold?
In Fujifilm's last fiscal year, which ended 31th March 2019, they sold 10 (!!) million instax cameras.
Instax is now the most successful camera type, significantly surpasssing digital compact cameras, DSLRs and DSLMs in unit sales volume.
My local camera shop (brick and mortar store) told me they are selling thousands (!) of instax film packs each month. That helps them staying alive. Whereas digital cameras are sitting on the shelfs and gathering dust.
The drugstore chain shops here are meanwhile also selling instax film packs along to standard film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #93
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,313
The following is known as the Business Life Cycle Graph. It describes the fate of every market that exists........unless it can be extended by constant innovation (but eventually even that fails as the potential market becomes saturated)

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #94
joe bosak
Registered User
 
joe bosak is offline
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 87
Yes, and by defining the market as "standalone cameras etc" rather than "photography" we exclude a few major innovations in photography from our picture (smart phones and instax for example) and we get the drop off at the end.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #95
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,024
The entire capitalist economy is based on continual growth, obviously unsustainable and inherently flawed. Rather than viewing this as a drastic drop in sales, I view this as the camera market experienced an unprecedented boom period due to digital technology and cheap digital cameras. The same base tech also resulted in ending that boom period when smart phones took over. What is occurring now is a "market correction". The big established players will scale back to pre-boom levels. I wouldn't invest in them. But I'd still buy their cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #96
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
The entire capitalist economy is based on continual growth, obviously unsustainable and inherently flawed. Rather than viewing this as a drastic drop in sales, I view this as the camera market experienced an unprecedented boom period due to digital technology and cheap digital cameras. The same base tech also resulted in ending that boom period when smart phones took over. What is occurring now is a "market correction". The big established players will scale back to pre-boom levels. I wouldn't invest in them. But I'd still buy their cameras.

I believe that this view is incorrect, simply because the market for imaging devices is growing. Every single year millions of people in developing countries join the middle class. In China alone over 100 million people joined the middle class in the past decade. India is also growing, although not as rapidly. These new members of the middle class want to capture their lives and record them for their families. It is telling, very very telling, that despite tens of millions of growth to this market, the traditional camera companies cannot eek out a million or more units of sales.



It's not surprising. Why would you want a traditional camera when your phone can do 99% of that and is always with you?


The big players are not preparing to scale back to "pre boom" levels because the steep decline in sales is not showing any signs of ending.



As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, diversifying completely away from photography is the strategy most companies have taken. Fujifilm makes far more money from office equipment than they do cameras. Fuji is also investing very heavily in pharmaceuticals. Canon makes a huge amount of their revenue in the same area. Nikon is investing in chip production. Canon and Nikon are going mirrorless, so it will be interesting to see what, if any, affect that has on their sales.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #97
bushwick1234
Registered User
 
bushwick1234's Avatar
 
bushwick1234 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
The latest camera sales numbers are in and the bloodletting that the industry has been undergoing the past several years shows no signs of letting up. There's still a massive contraction in the camera market with revenues down severely. Something has *got* to give.



What is going to save the traditional camera industry? Can it be saved?
  • Canon down 23%
  • Sony down 7%
  • Nikon down 21%
  • Fujifilm down 3%
  • Olympus down 24%
  • Ricoh (Pentax) up 4%
  • Overall camera shipments (CIPA) were down 25% in dollars
  • Overall lens shipments (CIPA) were down 13% in dollars
Leica is not following that pattern, though. https://ch-de.leica-camera.com/Unter...Kameramarkt-ab
__________________
Kaniel M
"If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera." LH
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #98
lynnb
Registered User
 
lynnb's Avatar
 
lynnb is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 8,381
As always, I find Thom Hogan's thoughtful musings on this subject illuminating.
__________________
Lynn
happiest when shooting 35mm and 120 film
RFF Gallery
Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #99
NickTrop
Registered User
 
NickTrop's Avatar
 
NickTrop is offline
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
I believe that this view is incorrect, simply because the market for imaging devices is growing. Every single year millions of people in developing countries join the middle class. In China alone over 100 million people joined the middle class in the past decade. India is also growing, although not as rapidly. These new members of the middle class want to capture their lives and record them for their families. It is telling, very very telling, that despite tens of millions of growth to this market, the traditional camera companies cannot eek out a million or more units of sales.



It's not surprising. Why would you want a traditional camera when your phone can do 99% of that and is always with you?


The big players are not preparing to scale back to "pre boom" levels because the steep decline in sales is not showing any signs of ending.



As someone else mentioned earlier in the thread, diversifying completely away from photography is the strategy most companies have taken. Fujifilm makes far more money from office equipment than they do cameras. Fuji is also investing very heavily in pharmaceuticals. Canon makes a huge amount of their revenue in the same area. Nikon is investing in chip production. Canon and Nikon are going mirrorless, so it will be interesting to see what, if any, affect that has on their sales.
-- I believe this (my) view is correct because it inherently addresses the growth in photographic imaging in the Asian market. They use Smart phones like eveyone else.

-- Additionally, the "steep decline" will level off. That it has
no signs of abating" is an incorrect assumption. The decline in film sales "leveled off" and experienced a modest uptick (I read about here). Digital imaging -- DSLRs, mirrorless will not be as drastically impacted as the film industry was. You can still get slide and 120 roll film (for Pete's sake), which really, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, has no useful application in modern times and is completely obsolete.

-- The big suppliers ARE scaling back to pre-boom levels based on forecasted demand. They, however, have no plans to cease prodution afaik. That they are strategically focusing on other divisions -- now that the camera boom is over, is only logical/goes without saying.

I am not sure what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure that you can reasonably disagree with my original statement.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #100
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickTrop View Post
-- I believe this (my) view is correct because it inherently addresses the growth in photographic imaging in the Asian market. They use Smart phones like eveyone else.

-- Additionally, the "steep decline" will level off. That it has
no signs of abating" is an incorrect assumption. The decline in film sales "leveled off" and experienced a modest uptick (I read about here). Digital imaging -- DSLRs, mirrorless will not be as drastically impacted as the film industry was. You can still get slide and 120 roll film (for Pete's sake), which really, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, has no useful application in modern times and is completely obsolete.

-- The big suppliers ARE scaling back to pre-boom levels based on forecasted demand. They, however, have no plans to cease prodution afaik. That they are strategically focusing on other divisions -- now that the camera boom is over, is only logical/goes without saying.

I am not sure what you're disagreeing with. I'm not sure that you can reasonably disagree with my original statement.

We need a few more years to see which view is the correct one. With the decline in sales volume still very much ongoing, the contraction, IMO, will be severe enough for several players to exit the market. That would be far beyond contracting to pre doom levels of sales.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #101
Larry Cloetta
Registered User
 
Larry Cloetta is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Jackson, WY
Age: 69
Posts: 1,389
Times have changed for photographers. They are not going to unchange, though this is neither good or bad, it’s just going to be different in some ways, going forward.
Phones are perfectly good for, as has been said here, perhaps 99% of the photos taken day to day, worldwide. They are not, however, perfectly good for 99% of photography. Those are two distinct things. Phones are more than adequate for selfies, pictures of your coffee cup and bagel, your lunch, your aunt Margaret at Naigara Falls, and any photograph Henry Cartier Bresson ever took, i.e. most any photograph ever taken with a rangefinder. Phones are not good for sports, most landscapes, wildlife, architecture, most fashion, macro, and most commercial product photography. Nor is it likely they ever will be.

Ever since the advent of the Brownie, the people who bought cameras to take photos of aunt Margaret at Niagara Falls have been the volume buyers, they have been the ones who subsidized the camera industry so that a few others could enjoy sports, wildlife, landscape, etc photography on the cheap, and manage a few snaps of their dinner on the side. Those days are not “probably” gone forever, they are just gone.

This is a rangefinder forum, rangefinder photography is a style of photography, it’s not photography. If that is one’s chosen style of photography, a phone is really the functionally perfect analog (yikes, sorry) to a rangefinder camera. Look at the entirety of HCB’s work and try to find one shot that couldn’t have been made with a phone, and sharper. Other types of photography, and there are many other types, not so much. But the number of people who have a need and desire to do those other types of photography, day in and day out, isn’t so great compared to the sheer numbers of people going about their lives “taking pictures” of their lunch, or themselves.

Sales volumes for “real cameras” are going to go down until they reach a steady state commensurate with the numbers of photographers who need and want a “real camera”. Expect to pay more, possibly a lot more, since uncle Fred’s purchase isn’t subsidizing your purchase any longer, as uncle Fred and most of his friends have moved on. However, makers of “real cameras” are not going to disappear, not all of them anyway. No point in worrying about it. Current cameras are amazingly competent, and competent cameras are not going to disappear. Really.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #102
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Cloetta View Post
They are not, however, perfectly good for 99% of photography. Those are two distinct things. Phones are more than adequate for selfies, pictures of your coffee cup and bagel, your lunch, your aunt Margaret at Naigara Falls, and any photograph Henry Cartier Bresson ever took, i.e. most any photograph ever taken with a rangefinder. Phones are not good for sports, most landscapes,

My iPhone X takes excellent landscape/street shots. It really is phenomenal the quality that comes out of it. Once I got rid of the snob reaction to phones and took them seriously, I began to see what they can really do. As a result, my Fuji X100 now collects dust.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #103
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,628
Most people used to use Brownies and Instamatics. Then they used digital point and shoots. Now they use their phones. Time marches on. That whole segment of the camera industry is gone, and camera companies will contract and focus on professionals and enthusiasts. We may lose a few players. But the sky is not falling.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #104
seagrove
Rich
 
seagrove is offline
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
My iPhone X takes excellent landscape/street shots. It really is phenomenal the quality that comes out of it. Once I got rid of the snob reaction to phones and took them seriously, I began to see what they can really do. As a result, my Fuji X100 now collects dust.
"Phenomenal quality" is a very subjective term. Just one question - how well do your cellphone images stand up to cropping or printing at 8"x12" or larger. I can often do a severe crop of my X100S images and print at 12"x18". Is the Iphone really that good? I guess I am just too "old school" and enjoy bringing my camera up to my eye rather than holding a phone out so I can see the image. Oh well, to each their own....
__________________
Rich
http://meandmyx100s.blogspot.com
Yashica Electro35 GS, Fujifilm X100S (both silver & black bodies), TCL-X100, WCL-X100, sold everything else!

Last edited by seagrove : 05-17-2019 at 05:24. Reason: correction
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #105
Peter Wijninga
Registered User
 
Peter Wijninga's Avatar
 
Peter Wijninga is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 4,916
To each his own, indeed. If I had to rely on a phone to take pics today, I'd stop taking pics that same day. No worries though, it is not going to happen any time soon. All the best to Ted Striker and his Messianic outlook on life...I'll just continue taking pics with my outdated film cameras and with my doomed digital cameras. Cheers
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #106
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by seagrove View Post
"Phenomenal quality" is a very subjective term. Just one question - how well do your cellphone images stand up to cropping or printing at 8"x12" or larger. I can often do a severe crop of my X100S images and print at 12"x18". Is the Iphone really that good? I guess I am just too "old school" and enjoy bringing my camera up to my eye rather than holding a phone out so I can see the image. Oh well, to each their own....



What is this "printing" that you speak of? Just kidding, but like almost everyone else, I have stopped printing for the most part. I have a top grade Canon printer but the thing just collects dust.

I have made maybe 5 prints this year so far.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #107
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,412
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
What is this "printing" that you speak of? Just kidding, but like almost everyone else, I have stopped printing for the most part. I have a top grade Canon printer but the thing just collects dust.

I have made maybe 5 prints this year so far.
And that's very sad.

I just started a thread about viewing prints vs viewing on screen and my thought is that all photos viewed online look like crap compared to the photo printed well on paper. Even in a book.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #108
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
My iPhone X takes excellent landscape/street shots. It really is phenomenal the quality that comes out of it. Once I got rid of the snob reaction to phones and took them seriously, I began to see what they can really do. As a result, my Fuji X100 now collects dust.
For me, my iPhone is not the same, not even close. Yes, I am happy with the pictures I take. Yes, it's used exclusively. Yes, it's always with me (unless it's charging). But it doesn't have the same feel.

I'm sure if I add a bit of software I can get better control over the focus and exposure, but it's the lack of a button for my trigger finger. There have been thin cases that provide a button, but they always are for the model that I don't have (first the 5, now the 7+).

Sadly I think that I'm on the wrong side of the 99% vs. 1% thing again.

But it's a good day here in Iowa. Bit of rain, a bit of sun later and lots to do.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #109
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogman View Post
And that's very sad.

I just started a thread about viewing prints vs viewing on screen and my thought is that all photos viewed online look like crap compared to the photo printed well on paper. Even in a book.

I agree with you completely. But I've run out of room to hang prints, and so they just languish in the house. I finally stopped printing because so few people could enjoy them. Maybe I'll print again, but I hardly shoot these days so not even much opportunity for new images.


I am toying around with getting some color film developed. All the labs closed down in my area so I have a stock pile of 60 or more rolls of C41 film. Several trips to Japan in there so maybe a few images worth printing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #110
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
......I am toying around with getting some color film developed. All the labs closed down in my area so I have a stock pile of 60 or more rolls of C41 film. Several trips to Japan in there so maybe a few images worth printing.
Aren't you in Ann Arbor? If so, what about CameraMall? They do 35mm C-41.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #111
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
Aren't you in Ann Arbor? If so, what about CameraMall? They do 35mm C-41.

Jim B.

Not 120 size sadly. I am primarily a 120 film shooter, except when I have my TX-1 out.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #112
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 379
Digital: where art goes to die.

And the phone leads that stampede.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #113
JeffS7444
Registered User
 
JeffS7444 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 152
Hopefully, today's camera makers will remain in the camera business, even if it means fewer and costlier products. Perhaps the old model of endless growth and fast product cycles never was sustainable.

I realize that smartphones are capable of great photos, but the ergonomics are crap, and sometimes I just want to take a break from the Tamagochi-like attention-sinks that are smartphones.

Speaking of which, my iPhone 5s will cease to work on Tracfone's (Sprint's?) network at the end of the year due to it's lack of VoLTE. I'm tempted to replace it with a dumbphone.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #114
ptpdprinter
Registered User
 
ptpdprinter is offline
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffS7444 View Post
Speaking of which, my iPhone 5s will cease to work on Tracfone's (Sprint's?) network at the end of the year due to it's lack of VoLTE. I'm tempted to replace it with a dumbphone.
Now you have me worried. I have an iPhone 4 with Verizon. I have no interest in buying a new phone.
__________________
ambientlightcollection.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #115
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 45
Posts: 19,696
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl J. View Post
Digital: where art goes to die.

And the phone leads that stampede.
How ridiculous...
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #116
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,492
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Not 120 size sadly. I am primarily a 120 film shooter, except when I have my TX-1 out.
Woodward Camera processes 120 C-41, but it means driving to Birmingham. Unfortunately Huron Camera in Dexter closed down a few years back. They processed 120.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #117
jawarden
Registered User
 
jawarden is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 388
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
Woodward Camera processes 120 C-41, but it means driving to Birmingham. Unfortunately Huron Camera in Dexter closed down a few years back. They processed 120.

Jim B.
I used to live in Birmingham and would walk my E6 and C41 to them. It’s nice to hear they’re still around. I miss Detroit.
__________________

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #118
Ted Striker
Registered User
 
Ted Striker's Avatar
 
Ted Striker is offline
Join Date: Aug 2017
Posts: 648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mackinaw View Post
Woodward Camera processes 120 C-41, but it means driving to Birmingham. Unfortunately Huron Camera in Dexter closed down a few years back. They processed 120.

Jim B.

Thank you for the tip! I go to Birmingham on occasion to bring my Lotus to the shop over at Auto Europe. Next time I'm there I will check out Woodward Camera. Have you used them a lot? Can you vouch for their quality? Camera Mall in Ann Arbor is pretty abysmal; all kinds of spots on the negatives. Very disappointing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #119
ChipMcD
Registered User
 
ChipMcD is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Striker View Post
Not 120 size sadly. I am primarily a 120 film shooter, except when I have my TX-1 out.
Ted,

As I am sur you know, there are still a lot of labs around, altho' you may need to reach them by mail. I'm lucky to have a good lab in my small city, but the only reason they are still around is that they get business from far and wide. They process 120 and larger C-41 and E-6. There are probably other labs that do work just as good.

http://www.colourworks.com/index.htm

Chip
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2019   #120
Keith
On leave from Gallifrey
 
Keith's Avatar
 
Keith is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 18,513
The smart phone and instagram appear to be inseparable. I have a friend who is constantly telling me I should check out this or that photographer on instagram.

No ... just no!!!!!
__________________
---------------------------
flickr
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 03:26.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.