Do you think Kodak will ever lower the price of film

Post by **etimh** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:15 pm

Well, I just got slapped on the head by my faithful editor watching OMS--language, jeez!

"Undiscriminating" is indeed a word. Sorry. I think I was really trying to get to "undiscerning."

Man, more coffee.

Tim

Post by **carlweston** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:18 pm

"I'm a bit burned out on debating this".... me too...this topic has run its course.

Post by **MovieStuff** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 7:23 pm

etimh wrote:I'm a bit burned out on debating this

Respectfully, you haven't debated it at all, Tim. You simply told us we were wrong with nothing but well-intentioned sophistry as to why your speculation was more valid than someone else's. That's not debate. It's just postulation using big words.

etimh wrote: I have no doubt that sometime in the future technology will somehow be able to simulate the surface manifestation of the chemical-based image. And I'm not so arrogant to assume that I will not be superficially "decieved" by such technology.

But isn't that far and away different than saying:

etimh wrote:Electronic imaging can never be film thus it will never be able match film. That is why my statements are not speculations but assertions of fact, based on the essential laws of physics and physiology.

It strikes me that such assertions are easily tested and there's no need to wait for any future shifts in technology. If I post contemporary photos taken with both film and digital, will you be able to consistantly pick which is which? ;)

Roger

Post by **ccortez** » Fri Sep 23, 2005 8:05 pm

etimh wrote: BTW ccortez, "undiscriminating" is not a word;

Umm, discriminating is a word. So what's wrong with undiscriminating? ;)

EDIT: sorry, I see now you caught that already...