Fishkin Bros. Camera To Go Out Of Business

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by Jeremy, Dec 3, 2004.

  1. Jeremy

    The Dave© Guest

    How do you prove a negative? (no pun intended)
    :)
     
    The Dave©, Dec 6, 2004
    #41
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jeremy

    The Dave© Guest

    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©, Dec 6, 2004
    #42
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.
     
    Scott Schuckert, Dec 6, 2004
    #43
  4. Jeremy

    Jeremy Guest

    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 . .
    ..
     
    Jeremy, Dec 6, 2004
    #44
  5. Jeremy

    Alan Browne Guest

    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.
     
    Alan Browne, Dec 6, 2004
    #45
  6. Jeremy

    me Guest

    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, Dec 6, 2004
    #46
  7. Jeremy

    me Guest

    Ha ha ha ha. I'm laughing so hard I'm in pain!
    Film, Ahhhhh!
    me
     
    me, Dec 6, 2004
    #47
  8. Jeremy

    me Guest

    Oh **** the digital explosion.
    Film good, digital po po!
    me
     
    me, Dec 6, 2004
    #48
  9. Jeremy

    me Guest

    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
     
    me, Dec 6, 2004
    #49
  10. Jeremy

    Jeremy Guest

    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' . . .
     
    Jeremy, Dec 6, 2004
    #50
  11. Jeremy

    me Guest

    Typo!
    Film good digital poo poo!
    me
     
    me, Dec 6, 2004
    #51
  12. "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.
     
    Scott Schuckert, Dec 6, 2004
    #52
  13. Jeremy

    me Guest

    You're dating yourself. Those consumers can't walk any more because they're
    all dead (with the exception of you and I)
    I'll take one of each please.
    Expand that to include any digital capture device.
    I can hear digital capture device owners screaming out in pain and anguish!
    Film, better than all the rest!
    me
     
    me, Dec 6, 2004
    #53
  14. Jeremy

    me Guest

    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, Dec 6, 2004
    #54
  15. Jeremy

    me Guest

    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
     
    me, Dec 6, 2004
    #55
  16. Jeremy

    Annika1980 Guest

    From: "me" [email protected]_.com
    WHO RULES ???

    -Annika1980----> rules anonymous trolls
     
    Annika1980, Dec 6, 2004
    #56
  17. Jeremy

    Jeremy Guest

    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, Dec 6, 2004
    #57
  18. Jeremy

    Jeremy Guest

    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.
     
    Jeremy, Dec 6, 2004
    #58
  19. Jeremy

    me Guest

    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.
    I could say why but it wouldn't be nice. :-0
    Film, Ahhhh!
    me
     
    me, Dec 6, 2004
    #59
  20. -A'80 ow3nez sum.
     
    John McWilliams, Dec 6, 2004
    #60
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.