Thank you, Kevin, for your response.
I fully understand and appreciate what is possible, in regards to human resources, with Luminous Landscape. It doesn't make sense to try and compete with DPREVIEW and other similar sites that have seemingly no limits to publishing every press release that comes along. However, in this specific case, I do feel that there is a specific bigger picture aspect to this story that affects us all even though on an individual basis it may not be appear so directly.
To touch on the Hasselblad article for a moment, this is a big picture story that goes far beyond touching just those who own a Hasselblad camera today. I do not own any Hasselblad cameras, but see the ripples spread out across the pond. While you could have just sent an email to the several dozen friends of yours that own pretty much all of the Hasselblad digital cameras in the world today, you chose to not just write the article, but posted it on your own site too and NOT blocked it from non-subscribers. This is a huge story. Your opinion and insight mattered.
Likewise, the Kodak/KodakAlaris announcements are significant to the industry. The underlying story is that this is movie film stock that is driving the release of the film, not still photography. If it was just about hipsters carrying around old Kodak Retina 1As, this would never happen. So, there is a story going on in movie production that is worth considering. The cut 36-exposure rolls are a byproduct of that underlying story. This is also a signal that the bottom has been reached and no further cuts are to be expected at this time. The bounce is likely a "dead cat bounce", but we've reached a floor, for now, and the usage of film stock has stabilized. We are now in a "new normal".
Kodak has an extremely long history of "Kodak giveth, Kodak take away." I'm not going to bank my future on the continual availability of this film, but it is certainly refreshing to see something other than our echo-chamber "film is dead" news. Especially as this contrasts with the news of Hasselblad. While Kodak/KodakAlaris has evidently adjusted now to life and the long-term, Hasselblad will end up as nothing more than a set of patents for DJI to mine in the courts or sell as "Hasselblad Inside" in their other products.
Do I have an ox getting gored? Probably, in a way. That could be why I am upset at what I feel is misguided coverage that chases shiny new rabbits and overlooks the elephants. I do still shoot and process film (mostly B&W and Fujichromes) along with digital. For some things it is the better choice, for other things, certainly not. But I am able to do things with a $10-15 roll of film that may not necessarily be possible with digital or certainly not without significant investment, effort or logistical challenges. Options. THAT's what is important here. It serves the photography world no good if analog capture were to disappear. Granted, in order to use analog capture effectively, it takes a major rethink in the workflow. What used to be the workflow even five years ago is no longer the best workflow today.
- Hasselblad Article, a larger story than first glance - published.
- X-T2 Article, an insignificant story - published.
- Kodak Ektachrome, a significant story about the industry, investments and trends - not published.
I'm asking that we avoid the echo chamber. The more we close ourselves into our tight little world of "the enlightened", the more reinforcement of that "enlightenment" we get and we fail to see that we're no longer relevant. If we ask ourselves "why would anybody shoot film today?", with the perspective of "I can't for the life of me, dream of going back to that nasty stuff", we don't get it. We're not asking the right question. The right question should be "what is it that those who are shooting film see in film that I can't?"
Again, this isn't just about film, pros/cons. That's a religion thing. My whole complaint really comes down to the fact that Luminous Landscape is becoming more insular and irrelevant when we're more about paint colors on camera bodies than we are about photography as a whole.
That's why I used the term "tonedeafness."