Fishkin Bros. Camera To Go Out Of Business
Jeremy
Jersey. They had quite a following--amateurs and professionals from New
York to Philadelphia, and the entire state of New Jersey.
Why? Because they knew their stuff, and did not treat their customers like
those New York camera stores. They had a broad inventory and their prices,
while a bit high, reflected the level of support they gave you.
If you needed refrigerated professional film, they had it. If you needed
repairs on virtually anything photographic, they could arrange for it. If
you wanted to trade in your equipment, they'd try to accommodate you. They
had a really good used department, for those that wanted to get in cheaply.
I bought my first 35mm camera and lens there--a Pentax Spotmatic IIa with
50mm SMC Takumar lens. I still own, and use, that camera--30 years later!
Fishkin Bros. also sold sporting goods--bicycles, models, Lionel trains,
you-name-it. They must've been hit hard by the shopping malls that became
dominant in the late 70s, because they turned most of their store over to
photographic gear. This was a niche that they clearly dominated. Fishkin's
wasn't no Ritz Camera--they were the real deal!
When I last visited the store this past summer, I noticed that the store
seemed a bit empty. Still lots of new and used Hassy lenses, but the Pentax
line was gone. Nikon and Contax were available, as was the refrigerated
professional films. But the used equipment was cut back substantially. In
the front window, they had P&S models on display--with signs that said
cameras were available starting at $39.99--not exactly the kind of sales
figures that would pay the bills for them.
Earlier this week they announced that they would be gone by the end of the
month. They were selling their building and throwing in the towel after 9
decades, and after having built up all that good-will.
The reason: The Digital Explosion.
Specialty shops like that depended upon those recurring small-ticket sales,
like film sales and photofinishing (they were the only place in town that
had Kodak processing. The messenger stopped by every day). Their sales of
darkroom chemicals, papers, darkroom supplies--all withered away. I hadn't
given it much thought, but those peripheral sales, small-ticket though they
were, were the bread-and-butter items for that store. They were the sales
that kept the register ringing. If they didn't sell a new Hasselblad and
lens today, they still made enough to see a modest profit.
No more.
The entire digital environment works against the local camera specialty
retailer. Digital was made for mail-order. You can get your cartridges,
printing paper and software at either a big electronics retailer or by
mail/internet. Who needs to drive 50 miles from home, to go to the only
real photographic supply store in New Jersey?
Even if you've never been to Perth Amboy, NJ and never heard of Fishkin
Brothers, there is a lesson to be learned from their story. The current
state of affairs in the world of photography is driving guys like them out
of business, all across the country. Those bread-and-butter consumables
sales are drying up fast, and it is polarizing the camera business. Either
the shop tries to compete in the high-volume market or it dies a natural
death. And we all know that there is not room for more than a few B&H
Photos in this country.
So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight. They
were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
back.
Paul Bielec
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gt3sd.3500$Va5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
I agree with you. It is sad but that's life. A business has to adapt in
order to survive. I have a similar story to yours.
In the '20, my grandfather opened his first photo studio in Lwow (used to be
Poland, it is Ukraine today).
Just before WWII he moved to Cracow where, although he passed away 2 years
ago, the family shop is still running.
My grandfather was the most renown portrait photographer in Cracow. He also
had a Masters diploma from the Fine Art Academy. Everybody wanted to have
their passport, wedding, graduation, first communion etc. picture taken at
the family studio.
You can see some pictures at the following links:
http://www.foto-bielec.art.pl/
http://www.mhf.krakow.pl/wystawy/bielec/
In the first link in "Galeria 1" as well as the second link's second picture
from the top on the right is a 19yo Karol Wojtyla, better known as Pope John
Paul II. Picture taken on a glass negative. The camera you can see in the
picture with my grandfather still works and makes better pictures that any
of the cameras the studio owns.
Until recently professional photographer diploma and association membership
was required in order to run a photo studio. It is not required anymore.
Anybody can buy a digital camera with printer and open a studio selling
shitty pictures dirt cheap.
My aunt has no choice, she can't beat the price, she has to beat the
quality. She struggles hoping that, eventually, people will get tired of bad
pictures and will be willing to spend money for professional work again.
Meanwhile, in order to survive, she bought a digital camera as well. But
there is as much effort put in producing high quality digital pictures that
there was with film pictures.
The digital made the photography more available. But even the most expensive
digital or film camera doesn't make one a photographer.
Ken Rosenbaum
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gt3sd.3500$Va5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight.
They
> were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
> back.
>
>
Jeremy,
Thanks for a lovely, well-written essay. Those of us who have been
photographers for many years join you in mourning the passing of such an
institution.
Ken
Annika1980
>Even if you've never been to Perth Amboy, NJ and never heard of Fishkin
>Brothers, there is a lesson to be learned from their story.
Yeah. Gotta keep up with the times.
Perhaps if they'd ditched the film crap earlier and gone with a Fuji Frontier
machine they'd still be in business?
Annika1980
>The digital made the photography more available. But even the most expensive
>digital or film camera doesn't make one a photographer.
>
I'd agree with that. And legions of fools snapping pics with their cell phones
provides the proof.
But like you said at the start of your interesting story, "A business has to
Tony
since long before digital arrived.
Darkroom use has been declining steadily all the 38 years I've been
involved in photography. The best camera store in my town went out of
business around 1990, and in my old home town all three of the camera stroes
I dealt with have been gone since the 80s.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gt3sd.3500$Va5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Jeremy
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041203173928...@mb-m10.aol.com...
Perhaps if I had plonked you earlier, I would not have had to read your
insulting remark.
I'll correct that error right now . . .
"P-L-O-N-K-!"
Annika1980
>> Yeah. Gotta keep up with the times.
>> Perhaps if they'd ditched the film crap earlier and gone with a Fuji
>Frontier
>> machine they'd still be in business?
>>
>>
>
>Perhaps if I had plonked you earlier, I would not have had to read your
>insulting remark.
>
>I'll correct that error right now . . .
>
>"P-L-O-N-K-!"
What was insulting about my post?
It's not like digital took over overnight. If you're in business you should've
seen it coming 5 years ago.
William Graham
"Tony" <tspa...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Cj6sd.26289$Mu3.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> Similar stores have gone out all over the country and have been doing so
> since long before digital arrived.
> Darkroom use has been declining steadily all the 38 years I've been
> involved in photography. The best camera store in my town went out of
> business around 1990, and in my old home town all three of the camera
> stroes
> I dealt with have been gone since the 80s.
>
equipment, the small mom & pop camera stores started to go out of business,
and this happened back in the 60's.
But some of the smaller stores can weather the storm. The guy near me
has taken to digital real well. He still has his own processing lab for
film, but he has added digital printing as well, and when you go into his
store, he has a digital set up where he can take a photo and display it on a
big screen in less time than it takes me to write this. He only charges
perhaps 10% or less more than the big NY stores, and you get the benefit of
his expertise, as well as a demo of everything before you buy. He keeps
updating his equipment as soon as something new comes out, so you get to see
the latest stuff, and he sells a lot of stuff to people just because they
would rather spend a little bit more and be sure they will get something
they can use and will be able to operate. His obvious enthusiasm for the
digital medium spills over to his customers, and it keeps him in
business.......
Jeremy
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:iD7sd.436311$wV.270970@attbi_s54...
>
> But some of the smaller stores can weather the storm. The guy near me
> has taken to digital real well.
I'm glad to see that some merchants have adapted. But many of these
traditional camera shops seem to have relied upon the recurring revenue from
film and processing, and darkroom equipment and chemicals. When they sold
you a camera, that was the beginning of what was hopefully a long
relationship of future sales.
There are not that many revenue opportunities when a shop sells a digital
camera. First, future film sales are out. Second, it is likely that the
customer will not go back there for prints. More likely he will buy an
inkjet printer (and buy his consumables at the convenient electronics store
like Best Buy) or he will use an online printer, as I do. The photo shop is
no longer in the processing chain. The Internet has replaced the photo shop
as a means of getting the images to the printing source.
There is very little left to offer the customer, except printing services.
And, as good as the prints may be, I'd bet that most customers will select
other options. Especially the customers that are not all that particular
about their prints--they can go to Wal-Mart or to the drug store and get
them while they wait. Admittedly, these are not big-ticket customers, but
their revenue in the aggregate was significant. And the camera dealer
probably is not going to keep those folks coming back.
I just can't see how the small community camera dealers can stay in business
for very long. Even the big chains like Ritz must feel the competition--why
would anybody go out of their way to buy a camera at Ritz when they can get
many of the same models at Sam's Club, or Costco or Best Buy or Circuit
City?? (I'm referring to consumer buyers) Ritz had positioned themselves
as a low-cost vendor of SLRs, by replacing the OEM lens with a Quanterray
(hell, the customer never knew the difference!) They can't do that with P&S
digicams--and the P&S models are the ones that are selling in large
quantities. So how long before Ritz starts consolidating their stores???
Digital is taking the camera and consumables business away from the
specialty shops and is making it into a mainline commodity. Do you remember
when there were stores that sold only TELEPHONES, for a few years after
divestiture of the Baby Bells? They popped up all over America, and they
disappeared when people could buy phones wherever they shopped. If that
does not parallel the camera retail business, I don't know what does.
Here in Philadelphia I have noticed several one-hour film processors have
closed their doors. Their bread-and-butter customers aren't bringing in
their film for processing in the numbers they once did.
I know that we tend to scoff at those mass-market consumers--the ones that
used to shoot on Kodak Instamatics, and before then on Kodak Brownie
cameras. But they represented many millions of prints every year, and many
rolls of film to be processed. And much of that business--that had
previously been the exclusive domain of camera stores--is now gone.
When camera stores sell only cameras--not all the other stuff that used to
be associated with photography--how can they operate profitably? I hate
being the pessimist, but the handwriting is on the wall.
Michael
>For 90 years they were a fixture in New York suburb of Perth Amboy, New
>Jersey. They had quite a following--amateurs and professionals from New
>York to Philadelphia, and the entire state of New Jersey.
>
>were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
>back.
>
So does the retail future point to the Wal Marts and Home Depots?
This is a frightening thought for me.
Michael.
Lisa Horton
Jeremy wrote:
>
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:iD7sd.436311$wV.270970@attbi_s54...
> >
>
> > But some of the smaller stores can weather the storm. The guy near me
> > has taken to digital real well.
>
> I'm glad to see that some merchants have adapted. But many of these
> traditional camera shops seem to have relied upon the recurring revenue from
> film and processing, and darkroom equipment and chemicals. When they sold
> you a camera, that was the beginning of what was hopefully a long
> relationship of future sales.
>
> There are not that many revenue opportunities when a shop sells a digital
> camera. First, future film sales are out. Second, it is likely that the
> customer will not go back there for prints. More likely he will buy an
> inkjet printer (and buy his consumables at the convenient electronics store
> like Best Buy) or he will use an online printer, as I do. The photo shop is
> no longer in the processing chain. The Internet has replaced the photo shop
> as a means of getting the images to the printing source.
>
Actually, for the adaptable merchant, there are continuing opportunities
from digital. A great many people don't want to make their own prints,
it's more expensive and time consuming to print at home. And most
snapshot shooters don't want to learn what they need to learn to make
good prints at home. Making prints from digital is a BIG growth area
right now.
There are also things like batteries, acessories, chargers, add-ons,
etc. While the experienced photographer may know that they can get all
of these things cheaper from B&H, your average consumer has no clue
about that. And they often appreciate the hand holding and advice they
can only get in person.
My local camera store has embraced digital in a big way. They make
prints, provide various services, and also sell supplies for the
hobbyist who prints their own. They (the store) are once again thriving
and busy. And they're selling TONS of digital cameras, from basic point
and shoots to mid-range DSLRs, at prices nearly as good as B&H.
While it's sad that your local institution is going away, it is by no
means the death knell of the local photo retailer.
Lisa
Gregory W Blank
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote:
> For 90 years they were a fixture in New York suburb of Perth Amboy, New
> Jersey. They had quite a following--amateurs and professionals from New
> York to Philadelphia, and the entire state of New Jersey.
Sad, one of my favorite memories was making my first mistake working at Omega Satter
customer service, ya see I shipped lots of equipment to most of the biggest photo dealers
around this counrty at one point or another.
The Fishkin Brothers bought alot of Omega Arkay products. My very first big mistake was shipping
a CD 80 dryer to them instead of a requested CD40. One had to be truck shipped the other
UPS shippable. It was a big mistake, and the Fishkins had to be informed prior to shippment
so that the truck could schedule, for what ever reason. I think there was some rather angry
words initially ,...if I recall correctly however after several; months I always enjoyed talking with them
when they phoned to order. Once they found out I actually knew something about photography
they were really great people to talk with and appreciated me when I became very knowledgable
regarding answers to more technical questions .
I beleive I recall the Brothers by name were Steve and Paul, so I tip my hat to them and wish them good
luck in future endeavors.
--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918
Jeremy
"Michael" <296...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ma72r0t0i07a5ts8m...@4ax.com...
>
> So does the retail future point to the Wal Marts and Home Depots?
> This is a frightening thought for me.
>
Well, I was focusing on the consumer photo market. Advanced amateurs and
true professional will always have their B&Hs and Adoramas. But the typical
American consumer--the one that bought their Brownie Starmite camera after
seeing it on Kodak-sponsored "Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet," or the guy
that bought an Instamatic after seeing it featured on one of those old
Michael Landon commercials--that consumer is probably never going to walk
into a camera store again.
So, yes, I think that Wal-Mart has become a dominant player with that crowd
(what HAVEN'T they taken over?)
The American consumer is probably taking more pictures than at any previous
time in history. If those pictures had been taken on film, Kodak would
still be a blue chip stock.
Instead of the old advertising slogan "We use Kodak paper--for a good look,"
that consumer is buying Epson printers or HP ink cartridges, and is shooting
on Casio or Samsung consumer digital cameras. He is paying a lot for his
newfound hobby, but that revenue is not going to the traditional
Kodak-and-authorized-dealer chain.
And how long can stores sell used equipment? It is one thing to buy a used
Yashica Mat 124-G, or a used Nikon F3, but what possible market can there be
for used digicams? Probably not much more potential than the used cellular
phone market--in other words, nonexistent.
Anybody want to buy a bag phone?
Annika1980
>The guy near me
>has taken to digital real well.
>His obvious enthusiasm for the
>digital medium spills over to his customers, and it keeps him in
>business.......
Sounds like my kind of guy!
Annika1980
>There is very little left to offer the customer, except printing services.
>And, as good as the prints may be, I'd bet that most customers will select
>other options. Especially the customers that are not all that particular
>about their prints--they can go to Wal-Mart or to the drug store and get
>them while they wait. Admittedly, these are not big-ticket customers, but
>their revenue in the aggregate was significant. And the camera dealer
>probably is not going to keep those folks coming back.
This is very true and is just another example of types of business that are
killed off by Walmart. They are doing the same thing to portrait photographers
by offering prices that nobody can match. They can take a loss on their
portrait business if they have to just to get folks through the door.
And who needs quality anymore when you can go to Walmart and eat a Big Mac in
the McDonalds inside while you wait for your $0.25 prints on the Matte finish?
Tony
Jer old bean. You listen to one pathetic story from one store and decide
that the whole world is going down the tubes because of a change in the way
pictures are made. That strikes me as being a sure sign of a loser, Jer.
Have fun with your super eight movie camera, your new AR turntable, and that
keeno electric typewriter pal -- who knows you might be able to make a
living as a museum!
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4N6sd.2674$714...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Tony
blacksmiths starved to death with the advent of the automobile.
My lab has been doing jes'fine for at least 15 years. In that time the
custom printing they do has gome from completely chemical to about 80
percent inkjet. You can adapt and make money, or you can cry a lot and go
out of business. I can't say I've got much sympathy for those who claim to
be unable to make money off digital. They must have been doing something
very poorly.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Z19sd.4178$Va5...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Skip M
of my local stores, when they found themselves selling less and less film,
paper, etc, started selling high end printers and inkjet papers (Ilford,
Museo, Lumijet), a wide assortment of inks, just that day to day stuff that
Agfa paper and Fuji film was a few years ago. And they do their own
printing, they've developed a reputation as a pro level lab serving a
sizeable chunk of the pro photographers in North San Diego County. Of
course, they still sell paper and film, just less of it than before. You
can go in there and see a Canon 1v on the shelf, right next to a Canon 1D
mkII.
Now, they've sold out to Calumet, who wanted their expertise in the consumer
and digital markets.
Adapt or die...
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4N6sd.2674$714...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
Annika1980
>And who needs quality anymore when you can go to Walmart and eat a Big Mac in
>the McDonalds inside while you wait for your $0.25 prints on the Matte
>finish?
>
I forgot to mention one other thing about Walmart. If your pics are really
good, they won't print them unless you can prove you're a pro.
Skip M
<snipped>
> When camera stores sell only cameras--not all the other stuff that used to
> be associated with photography--how can they operate profitably? I hate
> being the pessimist, but the handwriting is on the wall.
>
>
My local store, like I said in a previous post, has really gotten a handle
on digital. They offer a service called Silverwire. I email in a digital
file, and it's printed in 24 hours. An 8x10 costs $3.99. I spend 50 cents
just on paper for that size print... I can pick it up at the lab, or they
will mail it to me.
Slartibartfast
> Similar stores have gone out all over the country and have been doing so
> since long before digital arrived.
> Darkroom use has been declining steadily all the 38 years I've been
> involved in photography. The best camera store in my town went out of
> business around 1990, and in my old home town all three of the camera stroes
> I dealt with have been gone since the 80s.
fields, not just photography. Consumers are becoming more price
conscious and less service conscious. A few years ago if a customer
wanted to buy something he would go to a store where he would get the
service and advice he wanted, and pay the price they were asking. Then
the mass merchants set up with the products at lower prices, then the
internet with prices lower still. These lower prices are sustainable for
the low cost structure of a mass merchant or an internet retailer, but
aren't sustainable for a mum & dad retailer with a bricks and mortar
store who want to give good customer service as well. Instead of valuing
the extra service these stores were giving him, Joe Consumer just
thought he was getting ripped off. Now we even see Joe Consumer's who go
to the Mum & Dad retailers for the expert advice prior to buying (by
making them believe they are a genuine customer), but then will only buy
from them if they can match an internet price. The internet merchant who
is able to provide that super low price, does so without needing to pay
a knowledgeable salesman, he only pays storemen. He doesn't need to pay
the high rents for a retail showroom, he only pays cheap warehouse rates
(or space in his garage). It is this emergence of the no-service,
cheap-price retailer, coupled with a consumer public that only sees $
signs, that is killing these stores, not the advent of digital cameras.
>
>
Alan Browne
> Perhaps if I had plonked you earlier, I would not have had to read your
> insulting remark.
>
> I'll correct that error right now . . .
>
> "P-L-O-N-K-!"
Me too please.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
Alan Browne
> For 90 years they were a fixture in New York suburb of Perth Amboy, New
> Jersey. They had quite a following--amateurs and professionals from New
> York to Philadelphia, and the entire state of New Jersey.
> When I last visited the store this past summer, I noticed that the store
Yeah, sounds like you were a real supporter if you went there once or twice a year.
> seemed a bit empty. Still lots of new and used Hassy lenses, but the Pentax
> line was gone. Nikon and Contax were available, as was the refrigerated
> professional films. But the used equipment was cut back substantially. In
> the front window, they had P&S models on display--with signs that said
> cameras were available starting at $39.99--not exactly the kind of sales
> figures that would pay the bills for them.
>
> Earlier this week they announced that they would be gone by the end of the
> month. They were selling their building and throwing in the towel after 9
> decades, and after having built up all that good-will.
If they are throwing in the towel, then they have squandered their goodwill.
> Even if you've never been to Perth Amboy, NJ and never heard of Fishkin
> Brothers, there is a lesson to be learned from their story. The current
> state of affairs in the world of photography is driving guys like them out
> of business, all across the country. Those bread-and-butter consumables
> sales are drying up fast, and it is polarizing the camera business. Either
> the shop tries to compete in the high-volume market or it dies a natural
> death. And we all know that there is not room for more than a few B&H
> Photos in this country.
This is not solely the plight of small photo shops but the plight of small
shopkeepers everywhere, most esp. in North America, but also in Europe over the
past 10 - 15 years.
> So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight. They
> were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
> back.
I might lament their passing in a philosophical kind of way but the plain facts
are they appear to have been a little too far from the center of traffic and did
not adapt quickly enough and smart enough to the times. B&H are situated in a
very high rent area, yet manage through efficiency to be profitable. They have
several dozens of employees and a first class operation from all points of view.
They've invested to stay on top and continue to do so. They are smart merchants.
I frequent three old style photo stores within 30 minutes of my house. Two of
them are doing quite well... but they've moved to larger stores, increased their
wares on display, adapted to digital printing services and continue to support
E-6 in the store as well Fuji Frontier minilabs (1 has an old Fuji plus a
Frontier). The 3rd store, which I frequent the most, has not taken the
opportunity to triple its floorspace, clear out its inventory and re-stock with
a plethora of new digital cameras. They still do C-41 and a brisk business it
is... but maintaining their business as is will likely result in their demise.
Alan Browne
> And who needs quality anymore when you can go to Walmart and eat a Big Mac in
> the McDonalds inside while you wait for your $0.25 prints on the Matte finish?
"Supersize me and an extra set of prints please"
Scott Schuckert
<alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> I might lament their passing in a philosophical kind of way but the plain
> facts are they appear to have been a little too far from the center of traffic and
> did not adapt quickly enough and smart enough to the times. B&H are situated in
> a very high rent area, yet manage through efficiency to be profitable. They
> have several dozens of employees and a first class operation from all points of
> view. They've invested to stay on top and continue to do so. They are smart merchants.
Your're right, of course - but I believe most of the posts HAVE been
philosophical. We're not lamenting the loss of a particular dealer, or
criticising their business practices; many of us just don't like the
way the world is changing.
Back when I was in the business, our store had a gallery and museum
area, hosted exhibitions and camera club meetings, and had a lounge
area where we could sit and chat with our regular customers.
This is no longer possible - it was barely possible then, in the 80's -
but I don't have to like it.
Tony
Industries LTD in 1978.
People ask me why as an advocate of buying locally I don't practice what
I preach for books or photo equipment. The answer is simple -- I can't.
There are NO locally owned book stores in my town that have anything like
what I want. I could go to Borders or Barnes Ignoble but they are no more
"local" than Amazon or my preferred book shops - The Strand and Powells.
For local camera gear - I would have to have some very limited needs or
would have to be willing to wait... and wait... and wait. There is one local
store here, a small place with modest stock - I give them as much business
as possible. There is also Wolfe's (ie Ritz) I don't waste time or money on
them.
If I want a piece of sheet music or a new method book I turn to the
internet. None of the local music stores sells sheet music and their
selection of methods is very limited (read ROCK). If I want an instrument I
buy locally. When I go into a record store (do they still call them that?) I
am presented with a huge selection of Brittany CDs. My taste does not run to
the favs of pubessing teenyboppers so I buy my CDs on the internet. DVDs
too as I'm not interested in all the tv shows and idiot movies available at
the local outlets -- which are just as "local" in fact, along with the
record stores, as Borders and Barnes again. Money spent in Camelot Music
will go to the chain not back into the local economy save for the minimum
wage they pay a few people who know nothing about the product they are there
to ring up (calling it selling would be like referring to making a shopping
list as writing literature).
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Slartibartfast" <slartib...@life.universe.everything> wrote in message
news:41b1...@news.comindico.com.au...
S.
He plonked you because you dared to make a truthful statement and did not
get all teary-eyed with his melancholy stumble down memory lane.
>
>
S.
the greed mongers at HP and Canon have made me realize that every digital
print costs me 35 cents at home and I can get it done at Sams Club (or Ritz)
for 15-20 cents.
S.
The Dave©
> > And who needs quality anymore when you can go to Walmart and eat a
> > Big Mac in the McDonalds inside while you wait for your $0.25
> > prints on the Matte finish?
> >
>
> I forgot to mention one other thing about Walmart. If your pics are
> really good, they won't print them unless you can prove you're a pro.
'Splain yerself, Lucy. Unless your talking about portrait-looking
shots, I'm not sure what you mean.
--
Why pay money to have your family tree traced; go into politics and
your opponents will do it for you.
~Author Unknown
eah20
because they're not willing to adapt to the "digital explosion". The camera
shops around here are filled with customers hanging around the digital
camera counter looking at the Canon Digital Rebel and others and they're
willing to pay through the nose for them. Most of the time customers are two
and three deep at the digital camera counter and it takes a good wait to be
served.
Chances are the owners of Fishkin are ready to retire and having to push
digital gives them a good personal reason to get out, but the opportunities
clearly exist if they wished to put the effort needed into it.
Digital cameras are... well... cameras and somebody has to sell and service
them.
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gt3sd.3500$Va5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Earlier this week they announced that they would be gone by the end of the
> month. They were selling their building and throwing in the towel after 9
> decades, and after having built up all that good-will.
>
Annika1980
>> I forgot to mention one other thing about Walmart. If your pics are
>> really good, they won't print them unless you can prove you're a pro.
>'Splain yerself, Lucy. Unless your talking about portrait-looking
>shots, I'm not sure what you mean.
I should have written, "unless you can prove you're NOT a pro." If your pics
look professional they may not print them. Here is their policy:
------------------
Walmart.com will not assist in the copying of a photograph that is signed,
stamped, or otherwise identified by any photographer or studio as copyrighted
material, or ANY PHOTGRAPH THAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY A PROFESSIONAL
PHOTOGRAPHER OR STUDIO, even if it is not marked with any sort of copyright,
unless we are presented with a signed Copyright Release. Negatives or digital
images of a copyrighted image will be retuned to you unprinted and you will be
provided instructions on how to present Walmart.com with a signed Copyright
Release.
William Graham
innocent.....How does one go about proving that any given photograph is not
the work of a professional? I would tell them that even if it looks like the
work of a pro now, as soon as they get done with it, it will be only too
obvious that it isn't professional work....:^)
Bob Hickey
at Wal-Mart's finest.. After that, no more problem.
Bob Hickey
McLeod
I believe that they have been successfully sued more than once for
copyright infringement. It may even have been them sued by the late
Galen Rowell for actually using one of his images for a large instore
display that was in all of there stores.
Gregory W Blank
McLeod <cerv...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> I believe that they have been successfully sued more than once for
> copyright infringement. It may even have been them sued by the late
> Galen Rowell for actually using one of his images for a large instore
> display that was in all of there stores.
Briefly I worked for "Kinkos" there was a story within our store
that someone had sued the store for 75,000 and that's why no
© materials were to to be copied without a form signed by the
customer bearing all liability for doing so. The store itself never infringed
or became an accessorie of that infringement.
Alan Browne
I doubt that thay would invoke this policy based on a set of negatives. Based
on studio prints, yes.
In any case, for those of us 'round here, Wal-Merde is hardly a consideration.
Colm
j/k, it's a shame to see old reliables going down the tubes.
--
Colm
"Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:gt3sd.3500$Va5....@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
: So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight. They
:
:
DALLAS
> For 90 years they were a fixture in New York suburb of Perth Amboy, New
> Jersey. They had quite a following--amateurs and professionals from New
> York to Philadelphia, and the entire state of New Jersey.
>
> Why? Because they knew their stuff, and did not treat their customers like
> those New York camera stores. They had a broad inventory and their prices,
> while a bit high, reflected the level of support they gave you.
>
> If you needed refrigerated professional film, they had it. If you needed
> repairs on virtually anything photographic, they could arrange for it. If
> you wanted to trade in your equipment, they'd try to accommodate you. They
> had a really good used department, for those that wanted to get in cheaply.
>
> I bought my first 35mm camera and lens there--a Pentax Spotmatic IIa with
> 50mm SMC Takumar lens. I still own, and use, that camera--30 years later!
>
> Fishkin Bros. also sold sporting goods--bicycles, models, Lionel trains,
> you-name-it. They must've been hit hard by the shopping malls that became
> dominant in the late 70s, because they turned most of their store over to
> photographic gear. This was a niche that they clearly dominated. Fishkin's
> wasn't no Ritz Camera--they were the real deal!
>
> When I last visited the store this past summer, I noticed that the store
> seemed a bit empty. Still lots of new and used Hassy lenses, but the Pentax
> line was gone. Nikon and Contax were available, as was the refrigerated
> professional films. But the used equipment was cut back substantially. In
> the front window, they had P&S models on display--with signs that said
> cameras were available starting at $39.99--not exactly the kind of sales
> figures that would pay the bills for them.
>
> Earlier this week they announced that they would be gone by the end of the
> month. They were selling their building and throwing in the towel after 9
> decades, and after having built up all that good-will.
>
> The reason: The Digital Explosion.
>
> Specialty shops like that depended upon those recurring small-ticket sales,
> like film sales and photofinishing (they were the only place in town that
> had Kodak processing. The messenger stopped by every day). Their sales of
> darkroom chemicals, papers, darkroom supplies--all withered away. I hadn't
> given it much thought, but those peripheral sales, small-ticket though they
> were, were the bread-and-butter items for that store. They were the sales
> that kept the register ringing. If they didn't sell a new Hasselblad and
> lens today, they still made enough to see a modest profit.
>
> No more.
>
> The entire digital environment works against the local camera specialty
> retailer. Digital was made for mail-order. You can get your cartridges,
> printing paper and software at either a big electronics retailer or by
> mail/internet. Who needs to drive 50 miles from home, to go to the only
> real photographic supply store in New Jersey?
>
> Even if you've never been to Perth Amboy, NJ and never heard of Fishkin
> Brothers, there is a lesson to be learned from their story. The current
> state of affairs in the world of photography is driving guys like them out
> of business, all across the country. Those bread-and-butter consumables
> sales are drying up fast, and it is polarizing the camera business. Either
> the shop tries to compete in the high-volume market or it dies a natural
> death. And we all know that there is not room for more than a few B&H
> Photos in this country.
>
> So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight. They
> were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
> back.
You sound like a Springsteen song.
Adapt or die, as they say.
ChrisPlatt
since the peak years of the late '70's/early 80's,
long before the advent of digital photography.
If anything, digital may have helped some small retailers hang on...
Excelsior, you fatheads!
-Chris-
The Dave©
> Walmart.com will not assist in the copying of a photograph that is
> signed, stamped, or otherwise identified by any photographer or
> studio as copyrighted material, or ANY PHOTGRAPH THAT APPEARS TO HAVE
> BEEN TAKEN BY A PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHER OR STUDIO, even if it is
> not marked with any sort of copyright, unless we are presented with a
> signed Copyright Release. Negatives or digital images of a
> copyrighted image will be retuned to you unprinted and you will be
> provided instructions on how to present Walmart.com with a signed
> Copyright Release.
The points about Wal-Mert's quality notwithstanding, I suppose there's
a few ways you could go about this:
1) Argue for the good of truth over evil.
2) Fill out a copyright release with your own name and sign it yourself
to demonstrate to them their ignornace/paranoia. I'm sure the irony
would be lost on them, however.
3) Make up a copyright release and sign an imaginary name. How would
they know the difference? And, after all, all they really want is to
not be sued.
4) Sue them for defamation of character when they accuse you of being a
thief and trying to steal another's work without any actual knowledge
or evidence.
The Dave©
> It seems to me that this is being judged guilty until you prove
> yourself innocent.....How does one go about proving that any given
> photograph is not the work of a professional?
How do you prove a negative? (no pun intended)
> I would tell them that
> even if it looks like the work of a pro now, as soon as they get done
> with it, it will be only too obvious that it isn't professional
> work....:^)
:-)
Scott Schuckert
wrote:
> 2) Fill out a copyright release with your own name and sign it yourself
> to demonstrate to them their ignornace/paranoia. I'm sure the irony
> would be lost on them, however.
I don't speak from personal experience, but I suspect that's exactly
what they're looking for.
All they really need is something that puts the onus of copyright
liability on someone other than them - which a signed statement from
you about ownership of the images would do.
Jeremy
"Scott Schuckert" <n...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:061220040912514788%n...@aol.com...
They are only trying to obey the law.
My own experience with the quality of Wal-Mart prints is such that, even if
the original were copyrighted, the original photographer wouldn't want to
own up to being the originator. Their prints have always been that bad . .
.
Alan Browne
> 4) Sue them for defamation of character when they accuse you of being a
> thief and trying to steal another's work without any actual knowledge
> or evidence.
They are not accusing anyone of theft or copyright infringement, they are
invoking a policy of verification. They would have to state, erroneously and
publicly, that you are a copyright violator (or other brand of scoundrel) before
you would be in a position to sue.
me
> > >From: "Jeremy" jer...@nospam.com
> >
> > >Even if you've never been to Perth Amboy, NJ and never heard of Fishkin
> > >Brothers, there is a lesson to be learned from their story.
> >
> > Perhaps if they'd ditched the film crap earlier and gone with a Fuji
> Frontier
> > machine they'd still be in business?
> >
> >
>
> Perhaps if I had plonked you earlier, I would not have had to read your
> insulting remark.
>
> I'll correct that error right now . . .
>
> "P-L-O-N-K-!"
ROTFL The first person I *ever* killfiled was annika1980. It takes a high
degree of intelligence to capitalize the title of every message you post.
Film, better than all the rest!
me
me
Ha ha ha ha. I'm laughing so hard I'm in pain!
Film, Ahhhhh!
me
me
news:10r5167...@corp.supernews.com...
> They're not leaving due to the "digital explosion"... they're leaving
> because they're not willing to adapt to the "digital explosion".
Oh fuck the digital explosion.
Film good, digital po po!
me
me
> state of affairs in the world of photography is driving guys like them out
> of business, all across the country. Those bread-and-butter consumables
> sales are drying up fast, and it is polarizing the camera business.
Either
> the shop tries to compete in the high-volume market or it dies a natural
> death. And we all know that there is not room for more than a few B&H
> Photos in this country.
>
> So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight.
They
> were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
> back.
In the near future there will be only one store. Everything that the law
permits you to buy you will buy from this store. You will have no one to
blame for this situation but yourself.
Film, buy now or fall forever!
me
Jeremy
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
news:10r94tq...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Film, buy now or fall forever!
>
Yes, but what am I going to do with those 3 refrigerators full of MF
Kodachrome? Nobody will process it! Even Kodak (Qualex) has outsourced
processing--they don't do it themselves anymore!
Who ever thought that what was arguably the finest-grained emulsion of all
would be breathing its last so quickly?
Like it or not, the times they are a changin' . . .
me
Typo!
Film good digital poo poo!
me
Scott Schuckert
Jeremy <jer...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Who ever thought that what was arguably the finest-grained emulsion of all
> would be breathing its last so quickly?
"So quickly?" Kodachrome was introduced in 1925, as I recall.
Sad as it is, though, few people shoot slides anymore (too much
trouble), and no one wants to develop it (also too much trouble).
No matter that Kodachrome slides have better resolution, dynamic range,
and permanence than any subsequent film or process - "cheap" and "easy"
win over "good" every single time.
me
> But the typical
> American consumer--the one that bought their Brownie Starmite camera after
> seeing it on Kodak-sponsored "Adventures of Ozzie & Harriet," or the guy
> that bought an Instamatic after seeing it featured on one of those old
> Michael Landon commercials--that consumer is probably never going to walk
> into a camera store again.
You're dating yourself. Those consumers can't walk any more because they're
all dead (with the exception of you and I)
> And how long can stores sell used equipment? It is one thing to buy a
used
> Yashica Mat 124-G, or a used Nikon F3,
I'll take one of each please.
> but what possible market can there be
> for used digicams?
Expand that to include any digital capture device.
> Probably not much more potential than the used cellular
> phone market--in other words, nonexistent.
I can hear digital capture device owners screaming out in pain and anguish!
me
news:m8csd.194380$hj.13992@fed1read07...
> Why plonk him? What he said, though brutally expressed, has validity.
One
> of my local stores, when they found themselves selling less and less film,
> paper, etc, started selling high end printers and inkjet papers (Ilford,
> Museo, Lumijet), a wide assortment of inks, just that day to day stuff
that
> Agfa paper and Fuji film was a few years ago. And they do their own
> printing, they've developed a reputation as a pro level lab serving a
> sizeable chunk of the pro photographers in North San Diego County. Of
> course, they still sell paper and film, just less of it than before. You
> can go in there and see a Canon 1v on the shelf, right next to a Canon 1D
> mkII.
> Now, they've sold out to Calumet, who wanted their expertise in the
consumer
> and digital markets.
> Adapt or die...
In the near future all photos will be taken with camera phones. Prints will
be obsolete. So to will pro photographers. Photography will be a minor
subset of skills of the digital artist. Now lets see you adapt to that.
Film, buy now or fall forever!
me
me
news:kKdsd.26801$Mu3.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> My lab has been doing jes'fine for at least 15 years. In that time the
> custom printing they do has gome from completely chemical to about 80
> percent inkjet.
I don't know about your lab but from what I've seen of inkjet prints I
wouldn't even waste my money on them.
Film (and photo paper), still better than all the rest!
me
Annika1980
>> "P-L-O-N-K-!"
>
>ROTFL The first person I *ever* killfiled was annika1980.
WHO RULES ???
-Annika1980----> rules anonymous trolls
Jeremy
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
>
> I can hear digital capture device owners screaming out in pain and
anguish!
> Film, better than all the rest!
> me
>
I enjoy both. For me it was never an "either-or" proposition. For my
"utility-type" photos, such as home inventory pics, digital is an easier
choice. For my artsy stuff, it will always be film. I can't understand why
so many people are abandoning film entirely. I can understand how the
typical family user might want only one system (i.e., digital), but why
would photo enthusiasts not see digital as an additional option to, rather
than a replacement for, film?
Jeremy
"me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
>
> In the near future all photos will be taken with camera phones. Prints
will
> be obsolete. So to will pro photographers.
I'm not so sure that there won't continue to be a need for pros, but the
pressure will be on them to deliver a product that is superior to what
"Uncle Charley" can get with his digicam. Why else would anyone hire them?
That gap is narrowing. Consumer cameras are producing better images than
ever before. Lots of people (especially those on a budget) have been
bypassing professional wedding photographers and letting their family or
friends take the candids themselves.
When everyone owns a decent camera, and can print a half-decent 11x14 at
home, who will be hiring professionals, except for the most important of
life's events? There is a risk that the image of the professional
photographer will be lessened in the eyes of the consumer. Time will tell.
me
>
> "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
> news:10r9aki...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > I can hear digital capture device owners screaming out in pain and
> anguish!
> > Film, better than all the rest!
> > me
> >
>
> I enjoy both. For me it was never an "either-or" proposition. For my
> "utility-type" photos, such as home inventory pics, digital is an easier
> choice. For my artsy stuff, it will always be film. I can't understand
why
> so many people are abandoning film entirely. I can understand how the
> typical family user might want only one system (i.e., digital),
I can't. IMO the average consumer is the one most likely to loose a lifetime
of memories because of data loss. I think as time goes by we'll hear more
and more average consumers expressing regret because they abandoned film in
favor of digital. I guess they'll just have to learn this lesson the hard
way.
> but why
> would photo enthusiasts not see digital as an additional option to, rather
> than a replacement for, film?
I could say why but it wouldn't be nice. :-0
Film, Ahhhh!
me
McLeod
>When everyone owns a decent camera, and can print a half-decent 11x14 at
>home, who will be hiring professionals, except for the most important of
>life's events? There is a risk that the image of the professional
>photographer will be lessened in the eyes of the consumer. Time will tell.
>
And if every consumer can do as good a job as the professional then
they should be replaced. Simple as that. If I can't do a better job
than Uncle Charley that's my fault.
John McWilliams
--
John McWilliams
Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?
Skip M
news:cnq9r0tv4gaqpq1fo...@4ax.com...
You got that right! One of the most common laments I hear is that Uncle
Charley did their wedding photography, and the pictures sucked. But I also
hear a lot of people grousing about their wedding photographer to whom they
paid a couple of thousand or more, and the pictures sucked. Everyone who
owns a camera thinks they're a photographer, and technically, they're right.
It's up to the pros to keep coming up with images that the rank and file
can't.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Annika1980
>Estne volumen in toga, an solum tibi libet me videre?
>
That would be the 400 f/5.6L.
Skip M
digital cameras and programs like Photoshop Elements make what was once
difficult available and easy for the amateur.
But the photographer/digital artist who knows how and when to use film,
whether roll, sheet or Polaroid, will still be a little ahead of the curve,
as will the photographer who knows how to integrate film, digital and
nontraditional image sources and techniques.
Bob Hickey
>
> In the near future all photos will be taken with camera phones. Prints
will
> be obsolete. So to will pro photographers. Photography will be a minor
> subset of skills of the digital artist. Now lets see you adapt to that.
> Film, buy now or fall forever!
> me
Believe me, I would love to adapt to digital. I've had 5 scanners so far &
countless programs. 100% success. Every keeper goes into the digital crapper
as soon as I get tired of banging my head against the wall. Subset of
skills? The first subset of skills is the whole picture. The thing says
512 colors; how come I can't get two right: B&W. OTOH, It's free. Except
for this stack of keyboards that I've pulverized on and around the delete
key. Bob Hickey
Bob Hickey
> can't.
> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
It's been my limited wedding experience, a few years, that that
what people say; but , what they'll buy, is the SOS.
Bob Hickey
John McWilliams
With the 1.4 extender... a filter and a 3 lb. lens hood.....
J.
Matt White
> lifetime of memories because of data loss. I think as time goes by we'll
> hear more and more average consumers expressing regret because they
> abandoned film in favor of digital. I guess they'll just have to learn
> this lesson the hard way.
Absolutely! After all, your average point'n'shoot user has lots of properly
labelled and dated albums of every last print, negative and slide they've
ever shot over the past few decades and never, ever loses track of anything
at all!
Twit.
- Matt
William Graham
"Matt White" <mtw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:wfatd.191667$Np3.7...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
the attic and finding a bunch of CD's with some old photographs on them
taken by their great granddad........
me
news:wfatd.191667$Np3.7...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
fuck you
> - Matt
me
news:41B1210C...@lisahorton.net...
> While it's sad that your local institution is going away, it is by no
> means the death knell of the local photo retailer.
Yes it is. If film goes camera stores won't be far behind.
Skip M
Jeremy
"William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rHatd.149516$V41.110832@attbi_s52...
>
> >
> Perhaps not, but I just can't imagine my great grandkids rummaging around
in
> the attic and finding a bunch of CD's with some old photographs on them
> taken by their great granddad........
>
You are correct, and I myself have expressed the same sentiments. But
things have been changing. People are becoming more aware of long-term
storage issues, and more of us are taking better care to label CDs, make
Index Prints, and catalog the contents in various other ways.
There is no doubt that some percentage of those digital images will be lost.
But that is countered by the fact that more images are being shot now than
ever before with film. Two factors come to mind:
1: More consumers are buying digital cameras than ever bought film cameras.
The sales figures are staggering.
2: Those that own digital cameras are less likely to feel restricted in the
number of images shot, because there are no concerns about buying film.
Any image is better than no image. And, much as I enjoy continuing to use
my film gear, I find myself shooting more digital images, taking more risks,
experimenting more, all because I don't have to worry about running out of
film, or wasting film on shots that might not be satisfactory. With
digital, there is no longer any need to be "right" about exposure or
composition.
Finally, it appears that there will be services available well into the
future to read CDs or DVDs and to convert the images to whatever format and
media are then in use. True, it may require payment of a fee, like the
current services that will convert 8mm home movies to DVDs, but with so many
millions of CDs filled with images, it seems implausable that there will be
no way to read them as time progresses. Admittedly, it's my opinion, but
any predictions are essentially opinions.
My point is that we should not dismiss digital imaging as unsatisfactory,
simply because some percentage of those images will be forever lost due to
bad cataloging and storage procedures.
Jeremy
>If I can't do a better job
> than Uncle Charley that's my fault.
Actually I was directing my comments, not upon you pros, but upon the
changing attitudes in the minds of consumers. Regardless of how much effort
and skill you may put into your product, the likelihood is that a greater
percentage of consumers will be satisfied enough with their own images to
not want want to spend the money to buy a professionally-produced product.
The quality gap is narrowing. That tends to reduce your potential universe
of customers.
Jeremy
I don't doubt that what you say is true. But the real question is whether
the consumer will see your product as being worth the substantial cost.
There is bound to be a shakeout when some professionals can't deliver
products that are sufficiently superior to warrant being paid for them.
And, in this increasingly do-it-yourself environment, I predict that a
greater percentage of potential customers will elect to save their money and
accept whatever their cameras and photo editing skills can produce.
When so many people are doing most of their shopping at Wal-Mart (because of
the high cost of living) buying professionally-produced photos may be viewed
as an unnecessary frill. The consumer continues to have access to better
equipment, a wider range of focal lengths, and can do things with PhotoShop
or PSP that he never had the ability, equipment or skill to do in a wet
darkroom.
It won't kill professional photography, but it will almost certainly place
increasing demands upon pros to stay well ahead of the curve.
me
> "me" <anonymous@_.com> wrote in message
> news:10rah5b...@corp.supernews.com...
> > "Matt White" <mtw...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> > news:wfatd.191667$Np3.7...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
> >> > I can't. IMO the average consumer is the one most likely to loose a
> >> > lifetime of memories because of data loss. I think as time goes by
> >> > we'll
> >> > hear more and more average consumers expressing regret because they
> >> > abandoned film in favor of digital. I guess they'll just have to
learn
> >> > this lesson the hard way.
> >>
> >> Absolutely! After all, your average point'n'shoot user has lots of
> > properly
> >> labelled and dated albums of every last print, negative and slide
they've
> >> ever shot over the past few decades and never, ever loses track of
> > anything
> >> at all!
> >>
> >> Twit.
> >
> > fuck you
> >
> >> - Matt
> >
> >
> Good, mature response.
I wasn't responding to his arguement I was responding to his insult. You
think I was too harsh. You're making an asumption about how offensive I
found his insult. Only the recipient of an insult knows how offended they
are. IMO I just returned Mr. White's sentiment, no more, no less.
> Sheeesh, you couldn't think of anything else to say?
Why should I? In my first encounter with Mr. White he calls me names. It
would be foolish to assume that he wants to be reasonable.
This message is a measured response by,
me
Alan Browne
> Believe me, I would love to adapt to digital. I've had 5 scanners so far &
> countless programs. 100% success. Every keeper goes into the digital crapper
> as soon as I get tired of banging my head against the wall. Subset of
> skills? The first subset of skills is the whole picture. The thing says
> 512 colors; how come I can't get two right: B&W. OTOH, It's free. Except
> for this stack of keyboards that I've pulverized on and around the delete
> key. Bob Hickey
Methinks a photoshop evening course at a local college is in order...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.
me
>
> "William Graham" <we...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:rHatd.149516$V41.110832@attbi_s52...
> >
> > >
> > Perhaps not, but I just can't imagine my great grandkids rummaging
around
> in
> > the attic and finding a bunch of CD's with some old photographs on them
> > taken by their great granddad........
>
> You are correct, and I myself have expressed the same sentiments. But
> things have been changing. People are becoming more aware of long-term
> storage issues, and more of us are taking better care to label CDs, make
> Index Prints, and catalog the contents in various other ways.
Backing up isn't even on the to do list for the average consumer, the next
time Windows fails to boot they'll have to format their drive and reinstall
the OS, good bye photos. Even the most technically challenged consumer knows
where to get film developed and what a photo album is.
> There is no doubt that some percentage of those digital images will be
lost.
> But that is countered by the fact that more images are being shot now than
> ever before with film. Two factors come to mind:
>
> 1: More consumers are buying digital cameras than ever bought film
cameras.
> The sales figures are staggering.
Dumbing down comes to mind.
> 2: Those that own digital cameras are less likely to feel restricted in
the
> number of images shot, because there are no concerns about buying film.
Doesn't provide much incentive to take your time, check your framing, light,
composition or all those other pesky considerations that make good
photography, does it?
> With digital, there is no longer any need to be "right" about exposure or
> composition.
"No need to be right about exposure or composition" Are we're talking about
snapshots or was that a typo?!?
> My point is that we should not dismiss digital imaging as unsatisfactory,
I don't dismiss it for use by others I just point out the limitations. I
read countless threads extolling the virtues of digital but only a
smattering of criticism. Better to wear rose collored glasses when talking
about digital, facts just make people uncomfortable.
> simply because some percentage of those images will be forever lost due to
> bad cataloging and storage procedures.
With digital they're irrevocably lost.
Film. better that all the rest!
me
Skip M
it did so without resorting to profanity. Yours, however did. Overly
harsh, in my opinion, yes. Profane, point of fact, yes.
me
It wasn't his question I objected to. Let's just agree that you and I have
different ideas about what constitutes personal insults, OK.
me
me
Incidentally, I was obscene not profane.
Willing to be obscene when warranted,
me
Bob Hickey
"Alan Browne" <alan....@FreeLunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:6hktd.22165$Ou1.1...@weber.videotron.net...
> Methinks a photoshop evening course at a local college is in order...
>
Being as a copy of PS costs about the same as a good used Hassy
or a bad used car, the odds of me buying one are slim to say the least. Why
would I pay that much and work that hard to get something on a screen that's
almost as good as what's on paper already? Bob Hickey
William Graham
a decent job of getting my slides digitized....Perhaps Nikon's new "V" model
which is 4000 DPI and about $600. But I still think that I will continue to
shoot slides, because there is something "real" about holding a slide in
hand that I just don't get with a digital image. Also, the fact that film
costs a little more is a good thing for me. I already tend to shoot too
many, "junk" photos, and I fear that digital equipment will just make that
problem worse.
Annika1980
>costs a little more is a good thing for me. I already tend to shoot too
>many, "junk" photos, and I fear that digital equipment will just make that
>problem worse.
>
Yeah, but you don't pay for the junk pics with digital.
delete - delete - oooohhhhh! - delete ....
Mark˛
I wonder if it's not so much that the quality gap may cause a slowing in the
market for images, but rather that the notion among the masses is that they
"can now take great photos"--simply because they believe the hype. Once
they become avid shooters--however crappy they will most certainly remain at
it--I think there is often still a tendency for them to prefer shots they
have taken themselves.
I know this is true of myself.
While the fact that I love photography DOES make me truly admire/appreciate
the great photographic works of others, I am FAR less inclined to actually
BUY that work. Instead, my tendency is to want to go out and get my own
shots that are equally pleasing. -And although I may never be as good, it's
the fact that they are MY shots that makes them competetively
compelling...for me.
With everyone and their brother now thinking they are "photographers"...I
wonder if they won't be similarly lees-prone to pay for photos by others.
Truth is (in my humble opinion, of course), most people printing their
high-tech digital snapshots at Wal-Mart, Costco, etc. are still oo-ing
and -aaahing at the same crappy-snaps they always similarly ooh/aahed at
with point-n-shoots film cameras.
I really believe there will always be a significant gap--but not so much
from a technology gap, rather a
talent/eye/creativity/patience/persistence/learning/growth/artistic gap.
After all...Every one of us has access to better quality paint than the
greats of old had, yet none of us are churning out Mona Lisas. It's the
same old "pots and pans do not a cook make" thing...
-Mark
Mark˛
"Bob Hickey" <Hicks...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pvstd.66927$Vk6....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
Are you in any way associated with education?
A student?
A teacher/administrator?
If so, you can buy Photoshop at tremendous discount.
I recently bought not just Photoshop...but the entire Adobe Creative Suite
Premium...a collection of programs that retails for over $1200.00 USD for
about $329. This was NOT an upgrade. Adobe is very acomodating to anyone
associated with education.
Heck...with price breaks like that, it might be worth enrolling in college
again!
:)
Mark˛
> >>
> >
> >> But some of the smaller stores can weather the storm. The guy near
me
> >> has taken to digital real well.
> >
> > I'm glad to see that some merchants have adapted. But many of these
> > traditional camera shops seem to have relied upon the recurring revenue
> > from
> > film and processing, and darkroom equipment and chemicals. When they
sold
> > you a camera, that was the beginning of what was hopefully a long
> > relationship of future sales.
> >
> > There are not that many revenue opportunities when a shop sells a
digital
> > camera. First, future film sales are out. Second, it is likely that
the
> > customer will not go back there for prints. More likely he will buy an
> > inkjet printer (and buy his consumables at the convenient electronics
> > store
> > like Best Buy) or he will use an online printer, as I do. The photo
shop
> > is
> > no longer in the processing chain. The Internet has replaced the photo
> > shop
> > as a means of getting the images to the printing source.
> >
> > There is very little left to offer the customer, except printing
services.
> > And, as good as the prints may be, I'd bet that most customers will
select
> > other options. Especially the customers that are not all that
particular
> > about their prints--they can go to Wal-Mart or to the drug store and get
> > them while they wait. Admittedly, these are not big-ticket customers,
but
> > their revenue in the aggregate was significant. And the camera dealer
> > probably is not going to keep those folks coming back.
> >
>
> <snipped>
> > When camera stores sell only cameras--not all the other stuff that used
to
> > be associated with photography--how can they operate profitably? I hate
> > being the pessimist, but the handwriting is on the wall.
> >
> >
>
> My local store, like I said in a previous post, has really gotten a handle
> on digital. They offer a service called Silverwire. I email in a digital
> file, and it's printed in 24 hours. An 8x10 costs $3.99. I spend 50
cents
> just on paper for that size print... I can pick it up at the lab, or they
> will mail it to me.
For me, the whole idea of having someone else print for you is to defeat the
purpose of digital (in my thinking, anyway).
When I shot all film, I moved to slides so that I had full control over
final exposure. I scanned the film and printed it myself for the same
reason.
Now that I'm "mostly" digital, I see it as even greater control, because I
no longer rely on anyone for even the chemical development of slides. I am
now in absolute control of my images from start to finish.
Giving all that back to a printing service would really deflate my incentive
for digital as a whole. It's all about controlling the image for me.
Mark˛
"Michael" <296...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:ma72r0t0i07a5ts8m...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:51:40 GMT, "Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >For 90 years they were a fixture in New York suburb of Perth Amboy, New
> >Jersey. They had quite a following--amateurs and professionals from New
> >York to Philadelphia, and the entire state of New Jersey.
> >
> >So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight.
They
> >were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
> >back.
> >
>
> So does the retail future point to the Wal Marts and Home Depots?
> This is a frightening thought for me.
Don't be so freightened...
I once worked on a building in Haiti, and in order to buy some fairly
standard-sized screws, you had to go to a counter, tell a clerk what you
wanted....who would then write it down, hand it to a runner...who would jog
into a back room and come back to the counter where he would count out (one
at a time) the screws...He would then right down several notes about them,
and inform you that these were the only ones they had...
...Then you'd name your next item.
The circus would continue.
Each time, he ran back to return with ONE item off of our long list!
We spent OVER AN HOUR and 1/2(!!) filling a list which would have taken us
about 6 minutes to fill at Home Depot. It was then that we realized the
towns there simply were not culturally ready for sustained development.
I had a very similar experience in Puerto Rico...which is a terretory of the
US!
Builders and home-owners would go nuts if we had to rely on paper and
pencil, "let me fill your order" type places today.
I'm the most nostalgic guy I've ever met, but even I can see that we need
places like Home Depot. Do NOT confuse Home Depot with Wal-Mart, however.
In Home Depot, it is very easy to find help from people who know what
they're talking about, and can help you find what you NEED. At Wal-Mart,
you'll be lucky if you can get help finding an exit from the help they hire
for a gumball-an-hour.
Mark˛
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041206152605...@mb-m13.aol.com...
> >From: "me" anonymous@_.com
>
> >> "P-L-O-N-K-!"
> >
> >ROTFL The first person I *ever* killfiled was annika1980.
>
> WHO RULES ???
>
> -Annika1980----> rules anonymous trolls
How ironic, then, that I can only see this post from "me" through
Annika...since I've kill-filed "me" and not Annika. :)
I've been here for years, and now have VERY few people kill-filed.
This "me" guy is one of about 5 folks, and it only took about two of his
posts to land him in the clink.
:)
Mark˛
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:gDxtd.409508$a85.15106@fed1read04...
>
> "Michael" <296...@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:ma72r0t0i07a5ts8m...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:51:40 GMT, "Jeremy" <jer...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >For 90 years they were a fixture in New York suburb of Perth Amboy, New
> > >Jersey. They had quite a following--amateurs and professionals from
New
> > >York to Philadelphia, and the entire state of New Jersey.
> > >
> > >So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight.
> They
> > >were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
> > >back.
> > >
> >
> > So does the retail future point to the Wal Marts and Home Depots?
> > This is a frightening thought for me.
>
> Don't be so freightened...
Oops.
Frightened.
:)
Speleeng dusnt reely cownt hear.
Mark˛
> delete - delete - oooohhhhh! - delete ....
Still got cheerleaders on the brain, aye?
Jeremy
"Mark˛" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
Yep! Excellent observation.
Alan Browne
PS Elements 2 is free with Minolta (and some other) scanners. The Elements 3
version can be bought for $99. It is more basic than the full version, but you
can still doa lot... GIMP 2 is free (Windows).
Cheers,
Alan
Jeremy
"Scott Schuckert" <n...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:081220041022353823%n...@aol.com...
>
> The point is, 99% of the people you see CANNOT RECOGNIZE technical
> photograpic quality, let alone artistic quality. Expedience has won
> over expertise - completely.
Another major factor is that we have become a "do-it-yourself" society.
Just look at all of the home improvement shows on TV--people are tackling
projects that they formerly would have assigned to a handyman or craftsman.
Part of it is that they feel that they can get the job done just as well
(often they botch it up!) and a major reason is that they want to save
money.
Photographs are often viewed as commodities. Why pay $5000 to someone who
says he's a professional, when all you really want are a few wedding candids
that Uncle Charley can take for free?
Why go to an expensive photo studio, when you can take the family to Sears
or Wal-Mart photo studio and get acceptable portraits for $19.95?
The pressure is on pros to produce a product that is significantly ahead of
the curve, and an increasing number of consumers are asking themselves if
they really want to spend a lot of money for a professional product, when
the current quality available "at the curve" is acceptable?
I suspect that the small-town photography studios will take it on the chin
first. As an example, when I was age 7 and received my First Communion, my
parents took me for the obligatory portrait at the local studio. Now most
parents are taking their kids to the local Wal-Mart for those pictures--and
they are no worse than what they would have gotten from the local guy.
His "bread-and-butter" assignments have all but disappeared, and the
consumer is none the worse off in the bargain.
When so many people own prosumer digital cameras, how many weddings will be
photographed, not by the local wedding photographer, but by friends and
relatives whose equipment is capable of producing results that are at least
acceptable to most people?
It is no longer a case of a pro, with his Hasselblad, versus an amateur,
with his P&S. It is going to become harder and herder to stay ahead of the
curve.
Skip M
news:z5xtd.409399$a85.251243@fed1read04...
>
photography, as a whole, has diminished to the point of near invisibility.
If you're not shooting for a magazine, it's a tough row to hoe. Even
weddings and portraits seem to be more and more turned over to the Uncle
Charleys of the world, especially with the ability to fix all but the most
egregious of errors in Photoshop or Paintshop. Fewer and fewer people are
willing to pay for that
"talent/eye/creativity/patience/persistence/learning/growth/artistic" thing
you mention. The only silver lining is that, as a status symbol, those with
money are more willing to pay more for weddings and portraits, but those
with a moderate amount of money are less so inclined. And collectors only
buy what the galleries tell them to, and those galleries stick to the
already well known photographers, to a large degree.
Scott Schuckert
<shadow...@cox.net> wrote:
> Mark, I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. The market for
> photography, as a whole, has diminished to the point of near invisibility.
> If you're not shooting for a magazine, it's a tough row to hoe.
I work with a local college newspaper, which I'm desperately trying to
move to digital photography. Why? The atrocious quality of the
photographs they publish. They have an excellent darkroom, which has
been unused for years. The current proceedure is to have color 4X6's
made at the corner drugstore, from whatever point and shoot falls to
hand. These images are scanned and printed.
The result is far inferior to what I did in high school decades ago.
The staff has a vague idea that the pictures "aren't good", but they
have NO IDEA what's wrong with them or how to fix it. The concepts
involved just aren't part of their universe.
me
I hope you and annika will be very happy together in my killfile.
:-)
me
me
> "Bob Hickey" <Hicks...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:pvstd.66927$Vk6....@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Hassy
> > or a bad used car, the odds of me buying one are slim to say the least.
> Why
> > would I pay that much and work that hard to get something on a screen
> that's
> > almost as good as what's on paper already?
>
> A student?
> A teacher/administrator?
> If so, you can buy Photoshop at tremendous discount.
Foghorn Leghorn gives Mark a clue about Bob's interest in buying Photoshop:
I say, that was a joke SON! YOU DO KNOW what a joke is DON'T YA BOY?
This humorous post at Mark's expense was provided by:
me
me
>
> "Scott Schuckert" <n...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:081220041022353823%n...@aol.com...
> >
> > The point is, 99% of the people you see CANNOT RECOGNIZE technical
> > photograpic quality, let alone artistic quality. Expedience has won
> > over expertise - completely.
BINGO! Give that man a cupie doll!
> Another major factor is that we have become a "do-it-yourself" society.
> Just look at all of the home improvement shows on TV--people are tackling
> projects that they formerly would have assigned to a handyman or
craftsman.
> Part of it is that they feel that they can get the job done just as well
> (often they botch it up!) and a major reason is that they want to save
> money.
>
> Photographs are often viewed as commodities. Why pay $5000 to someone who
> says he's a professional, when all you really want are a few wedding
candids
> that Uncle Charley can take for free?
Skip Uncle Charlie, just pass out disposable film cameras. Cheaper, better
quality, and who knows, there might be a prodigy in the crowd.
> Why go to an expensive photo studio, when you can take the family to Sears
> or Wal-Mart photo studio and get acceptable portraits for $19.95?
The phrase "you get what you pay for" comes to mind.
> The pressure is on pros to produce a product that is significantly ahead
of
> the curve, and an increasing number of consumers are asking themselves if
> they really want to spend a lot of money for a professional product, when
> the current quality available "at the curve" is acceptable?
Embarrassing, (if you know what's possible) but acceptable.
> I suspect that the small-town photography studios will take it on the chin
> first. As an example, when I was age 7 and received my First Communion,
my
> parents took me for the obligatory portrait at the local studio. Now most
> parents are taking their kids to the local Wal-Mart for those
pictures--and
> they are no worse than what they would have gotten from the local guy.
>
> His "bread-and-butter" assignments have all but disappeared, and the
> consumer is none the worse off in the bargain.
Cheap = good = happy consumer.
> When so many people own prosumer digital cameras, how many weddings will
be
> photographed, not by the local wedding photographer, but by friends and
> relatives whose equipment is capable of producing results that are at
least
> acceptable to most people?
If the camera makes the photographer then I agree.
> It is no longer a case of a pro, with his Hasselblad, versus an amateur,
> with his P&S. It is going to become harder and herder to stay ahead of
the
> curve.
An educated consumer knows the difference between price and quality. It's up
to photographers to help provide that education.
Film, is for good guys!
me
me
> For 90 years they were a fixture in New York suburb of Perth Amboy, New
> Jersey. They had quite a following--amateurs and professionals from New
> York to Philadelphia, and the entire state of New Jersey.
>
like
> those New York camera stores. They had a broad inventory and their
prices,
> while a bit high, reflected the level of support they gave you.
>
> If you needed refrigerated professional film, they had it. If you needed
> repairs on virtually anything photographic, they could arrange for it. If
> you wanted to trade in your equipment, they'd try to accommodate you.
They
> had a really good used department, for those that wanted to get in
cheaply.
>
> I bought my first 35mm camera and lens there--a Pentax Spotmatic IIa with
> 50mm SMC Takumar lens. I still own, and use, that camera--30 years later!
>
> Fishkin Bros. also sold sporting goods--bicycles, models, Lionel trains,
> you-name-it. They must've been hit hard by the shopping malls that became
> dominant in the late 70s, because they turned most of their store over to
> photographic gear. This was a niche that they clearly dominated.
Fishkin's
> wasn't no Ritz Camera--they were the real deal!
>
> When I last visited the store this past summer, I noticed that the store
> seemed a bit empty. Still lots of new and used Hassy lenses, but the
Pentax
> line was gone. Nikon and Contax were available, as was the refrigerated
> professional films. But the used equipment was cut back substantially.
In
> the front window, they had P&S models on display--with signs that said
> cameras were available starting at $39.99--not exactly the kind of sales
> figures that would pay the bills for them.
>
> Earlier this week they announced that they would be gone by the end of the
> month. They were selling their building and throwing in the towel after 9
> decades, and after having built up all that good-will.
>
> The reason: The Digital Explosion.
>
> Specialty shops like that depended upon those recurring small-ticket
sales,
> like film sales and photofinishing (they were the only place in town that
> had Kodak processing. The messenger stopped by every day). Their sales
of
> darkroom chemicals, papers, darkroom supplies--all withered away. I
hadn't
> given it much thought, but those peripheral sales, small-ticket though
they
> were, were the bread-and-butter items for that store. They were the sales
> that kept the register ringing. If they didn't sell a new Hasselblad and
> lens today, they still made enough to see a modest profit.
>
> No more.
>
> The entire digital environment works against the local camera specialty
> retailer. Digital was made for mail-order. You can get your cartridges,
> printing paper and software at either a big electronics retailer or by
> mail/internet. Who needs to drive 50 miles from home, to go to the only
> real photographic supply store in New Jersey?
>
> Even if you've never been to Perth Amboy, NJ and never heard of Fishkin
> Brothers, there is a lesson to be learned from their story. The current
> state of affairs in the world of photography is driving guys like them out
> of business, all across the country. Those bread-and-butter consumables
> sales are drying up fast, and it is polarizing the camera business.
Either
> the shop tries to compete in the high-volume market or it dies a natural
> death. And we all know that there is not room for more than a few B&H
> Photos in this country.
>
> So raise a glass to the memory of Fishkin Bros Sporting Goods tonight.
They
> were the real deal--and places like that are going, and won't be coming
> back.
My posts to this thread are summarized by the following:
"I'm not trying to predict the future, I'm trying to prevent it."
Ray Bradbury
Indeed!
me