Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (9504)	3/18/2002 2:10:13 AM
From: nspolar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Kastel, I was going to write a similar note, but then forgot and let it go. I've read so many photo/silver demand notes I was not sure what to believe. My present view however reflects yours. I purchased our first digital camera for mspolar's Xmas, an Olympus D-40. Best Xmas purchase yet, for her, on my behalf. My family really likes it. Very small, and very good quality. I waited and waited, and then waited some more, before purchasing a digital. While I was in the shop making my purchase, several customers came in. Most could not afford a digital, let alone a good quality digital. So what did they purchase? Disposables. Due to price, and buying power of the average to less than average consumer, I suspect these cheap disposables are getting a lot of use. These in any event were my exact thoughts, by the time I left the photo shop. Wouldn't have given it a thought period, had I not owned some silver stocks.

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (9504)	3/18/2002 8:21:21 AM
From: Frank Pembleton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

Kastel, didn't we have this conversation with Art B. a while back? I remember letting it go because Mr. B is a tech guru, and I knew I wasn't going to win that debate... But didn't stop me from loading up on silver stocks. :) Let's put this silver in photography issue in another way - minus a computer and printer, yes the cost is still a factor - but I believe the factor that's most important is theft. Would anyone break into your car because they see a disposable camera? You can leave these things anywhere - you can buy several disposables and leave them lying around at parties - hoping someone gets the bright idea to snap a picture. When you take off to the washroom the disposable camera will be there waiting for you - right where you left it. IMHO disposable cameras rate right up there with sliced bread. BTW, Kodak is getting their asses kick by cheap disposable from China and not by digital photography - margins are thin in this sector. Regards Frank P.

To: Cogito Ergo Sum who wrote (9504)	3/18/2002 9:34:11 AM
From: Roebear	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36161

KastelCo,OT photography, We had long and lengthy debates 5 years ago on silver vs digital on other forums. My opinion then same as now, someday will replace film, but not yet. One hour photo labs still doing a good business and third world will keep film going for the 5 to 15 years it may take for the digital revolution to become mainstream in photos. Thirty years ago, as a teenager, I developed my own color film and prints in my home darkroom. Back then this was an very difficult process for an amateur, requiring 9 chemical solutions, the temperatures most of which had to be maintained within one half degree F. I had my own home made theromostat controled circulating water bath for the development trays and a half dozen enlargements took hours. Not to speak of the fact that the chemicals were toxic as all get out. In any case the results were good enough to win contests and were used in my portfolio for years as a part time pro. 99% of those prints and slides are still good today. I've been out of the business for a decade or two, so my info is dated, but they used to say a Kodachrome slide (which I could not develop, only kodak could in a complex proprietary process) would last 500 years in archival storage. Digital lasts forever as long as it's in digits, but the inks commonly used for digital prints are lucky to last a few years. Longer lasting near archival printer inks they say are good up to 70 years, but are rather pricey. The time it takes me to manipulate and print some of my stuff via the pc reminds me somewhat of my earlier endeavors with color processing. Takes too long for the printer, etc., but then again I am a digital neophyte, ggg. Meanwhile I am glad that I will be able to, when I have the time, preserve some of my best work from film in the digital format before time takes its toll on the dyes. And of course restoration work is great on the computer. Seems just like yesterday, but was 15 to 25 years ago I used to copy and do restoration work via film and darkroom manipulation to old photos for folks. Had a nice part time business. But all it takes is a visit to a local camera shop, where they have loads of great top of the line old Nikon/Canon equipment on sale cheap, to see that the future has gone digital. Those sale items no doubt result of posthumous auctions of equipment inventories of old shutterbugs who've gone on to their Great Kodachrome Reward in the sky. Enough sentimental journey this morning, back to work, Roebear