<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_22_1921210</id>
	<title>Kodak Kills Kodachrome</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1245699660000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>eldavojohn writes <i>"Another sign that digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog comes with <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?feedType=RSS&amp;feedName=technologyNews">Kodak's announcement to discontinue Kodachrome film</a>.  This should come as no surprise as <a href="//entertainment.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/05/26/1727240&amp;tid=159">Polaroid film was phased out long ago</a>.  At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>eldavojohn writes " Another sign that digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog comes with Kodak 's announcement to discontinue Kodachrome film .
This should come as no surprise as Polaroid film was phased out long ago .
At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>eldavojohn writes "Another sign that digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog comes with Kodak's announcement to discontinue Kodachrome film.
This should come as no surprise as Polaroid film was phased out long ago.
At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428023</id>
	<title>Paul Simon will be sad...</title>
	<author>DigitalSorceress</author>
	<datestamp>1245662220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the song "KODACHROME"<br>Paul Simon<br>Transcribed by Randy Goldberg<br>(<a href="http://www.lyricsdownload.com/paul-simon-kodachrome-lyrics.html" title="lyricsdownload.com">original URL</a> [lyricsdownload.com])</p><blockquote><div><p>...<br>Kodachrome, it gives us those nice bright colors<br>Gives us the greens of summers<br>Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!<br>I got a Nikon camera, I love to take a photograph<br>So momma, don't take my Kodachrome away<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>From the song " KODACHROME " Paul SimonTranscribed by Randy Goldberg ( original URL [ lyricsdownload.com ] ) ...Kodachrome , it gives us those nice bright colorsGives us the greens of summersMakes you think all the world 's a sunny day , oh yeah ! I got a Nikon camera , I love to take a photographSo momma , do n't take my Kodachrome away .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the song "KODACHROME"Paul SimonTranscribed by Randy Goldberg(original URL [lyricsdownload.com])...Kodachrome, it gives us those nice bright colorsGives us the greens of summersMakes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah!I got a Nikon camera, I love to take a photographSo momma, don't take my Kodachrome away ...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431043</id>
	<title>Change with the times?</title>
	<author>Nabeel\_co</author>
	<datestamp>1245672960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't think they know how to change with the times, because they did initially fight digital photography, however they did lean from their mistakes much faster than other industries *cough* MPAA, RIAA *cough*</p><p>This is pretty sad news, however. Although it does make sense... But I'm still sad to see it go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't think they know how to change with the times , because they did initially fight digital photography , however they did lean from their mistakes much faster than other industries * cough * MPAA , RIAA * cough * This is pretty sad news , however .
Although it does make sense... But I 'm still sad to see it go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't think they know how to change with the times, because they did initially fight digital photography, however they did lean from their mistakes much faster than other industries *cough* MPAA, RIAA *cough*This is pretty sad news, however.
Although it does make sense... But I'm still sad to see it go.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429943</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1245668940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tend to agree.  Negatives tend not to degrade nearly as much, both because the medium is more stable and because they are generally stored in darkness.  Also, film scanners are designed to compensate for fading negatives.  Print scanners don't expect to need to correct a washed out image.  Finally, prints by their very nature throw away a significant portion of the contrast range of the original negative, so even a brand new print isn't as good as a proper negative scan.</p><p>This assumes you have a film scanner or a flatbed scanner whose software knows how to scan negatives, of course.  Doing it with cheaper, dumber flatbed scanners is problematic at best.  Been there, done that....  Ended up getting prints made and scanning those.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tend to agree .
Negatives tend not to degrade nearly as much , both because the medium is more stable and because they are generally stored in darkness .
Also , film scanners are designed to compensate for fading negatives .
Print scanners do n't expect to need to correct a washed out image .
Finally , prints by their very nature throw away a significant portion of the contrast range of the original negative , so even a brand new print is n't as good as a proper negative scan.This assumes you have a film scanner or a flatbed scanner whose software knows how to scan negatives , of course .
Doing it with cheaper , dumber flatbed scanners is problematic at best .
Been there , done that.... Ended up getting prints made and scanning those .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tend to agree.
Negatives tend not to degrade nearly as much, both because the medium is more stable and because they are generally stored in darkness.
Also, film scanners are designed to compensate for fading negatives.
Print scanners don't expect to need to correct a washed out image.
Finally, prints by their very nature throw away a significant portion of the contrast range of the original negative, so even a brand new print isn't as good as a proper negative scan.This assumes you have a film scanner or a flatbed scanner whose software knows how to scan negatives, of course.
Doing it with cheaper, dumber flatbed scanners is problematic at best.
Been there, done that....  Ended up getting prints made and scanning those.
:-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427477</id>
	<title>j.delanoy has a small cock</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427907</id>
	<title>Re:Take Kodachrome if you must ...</title>
	<author>iknowcss</author>
	<datestamp>1245661800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't the wikipedia entry you linked to say that it was discontinued in 2005?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't the wikipedia entry you linked to say that it was discontinued in 2005 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't the wikipedia entry you linked to say that it was discontinued in 2005?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739</id>
	<title>Photography students in the digital age</title>
	<author>BenEnglishAtHome</author>
	<datestamp>1245661200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What is the digital equivalent of the Pentax K1000?  For those who don't know, the K1000 was *the* student SLR for the last 25 years of the film era.  Everybody had one.</p><p>So what do introductory-level photography students use nowadays?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What is the digital equivalent of the Pentax K1000 ?
For those who do n't know , the K1000 was * the * student SLR for the last 25 years of the film era .
Everybody had one.So what do introductory-level photography students use nowadays ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What is the digital equivalent of the Pentax K1000?
For those who don't know, the K1000 was *the* student SLR for the last 25 years of the film era.
Everybody had one.So what do introductory-level photography students use nowadays?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427685</id>
	<title>Well There Goes Archival Color Photography</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245704220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My Kodachromes from 20 years ago still look as good as they day they were processed.  Kodachrome was the film of choice for many years, you could even push it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My Kodachromes from 20 years ago still look as good as they day they were processed .
Kodachrome was the film of choice for many years , you could even push it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My Kodachromes from 20 years ago still look as good as they day they were processed.
Kodachrome was the film of choice for many years, you could even push it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429337</id>
	<title>Prism through which we see ourselves &amp; the wor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I never really thought I'd be so saddened by the loss of any film stock, but I reconnected with Kodachrome through a massive effort to scan over a thousand slides from my family's life in 2008 - 75\% of which were Kodachrome.

</p><p>The <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/nevermore/sets/72157606815428813/" title="flickr.com">two most beautiful pictures of myself and my sister</a> [flickr.com] were made on 35mm Kodachrome using my father's Pentax K1000.

</p><p>30-something years later I made a picture of my Mum and the image felt dreamy and at the same time the level of detail was unflinching. I wish I had used the whole roll making pictures of my family.

</p><p>Perhaps I'll use those last three rolls in my fridge for pictures of people I love. A fitting end to this way of interpreting the world.

</p><p>The Kodachrome look now firmly passes into the realm of nostalgia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I never really thought I 'd be so saddened by the loss of any film stock , but I reconnected with Kodachrome through a massive effort to scan over a thousand slides from my family 's life in 2008 - 75 \ % of which were Kodachrome .
The two most beautiful pictures of myself and my sister [ flickr.com ] were made on 35mm Kodachrome using my father 's Pentax K1000 .
30-something years later I made a picture of my Mum and the image felt dreamy and at the same time the level of detail was unflinching .
I wish I had used the whole roll making pictures of my family .
Perhaps I 'll use those last three rolls in my fridge for pictures of people I love .
A fitting end to this way of interpreting the world .
The Kodachrome look now firmly passes into the realm of nostalgia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I never really thought I'd be so saddened by the loss of any film stock, but I reconnected with Kodachrome through a massive effort to scan over a thousand slides from my family's life in 2008 - 75\% of which were Kodachrome.
The two most beautiful pictures of myself and my sister [flickr.com] were made on 35mm Kodachrome using my father's Pentax K1000.
30-something years later I made a picture of my Mum and the image felt dreamy and at the same time the level of detail was unflinching.
I wish I had used the whole roll making pictures of my family.
Perhaps I'll use those last three rolls in my fridge for pictures of people I love.
A fitting end to this way of interpreting the world.
The Kodachrome look now firmly passes into the realm of nostalgia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433513</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1245684360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Why not send your mother and father some CD's of the digital photos you want to restore?</p> </div><p>They actually get every single photo that I take... they just don't know it. I send them DVDs periodically with video of my daughter, and on the DVDs there is a "data" folder with every picture from that time period on it. So as long as they don't toss the DVDs of their grand-daughter, I'll have off-site backup of my photos<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>FWIW... I rarely throw out my own pictures. It just isn't worth the effort when storage is so cheap. I only put the best ones on Flickr, though. Hey... I guess that's another backup!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not send your mother and father some CD 's of the digital photos you want to restore ?
They actually get every single photo that I take... they just do n't know it .
I send them DVDs periodically with video of my daughter , and on the DVDs there is a " data " folder with every picture from that time period on it .
So as long as they do n't toss the DVDs of their grand-daughter , I 'll have off-site backup of my photos : ) FWIW... I rarely throw out my own pictures .
It just is n't worth the effort when storage is so cheap .
I only put the best ones on Flickr , though .
Hey... I guess that 's another backup !
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not send your mother and father some CD's of the digital photos you want to restore?
They actually get every single photo that I take... they just don't know it.
I send them DVDs periodically with video of my daughter, and on the DVDs there is a "data" folder with every picture from that time period on it.
So as long as they don't toss the DVDs of their grand-daughter, I'll have off-site backup of my photos :)FWIW... I rarely throw out my own pictures.
It just isn't worth the effort when storage is so cheap.
I only put the best ones on Flickr, though.
Hey... I guess that's another backup!
:)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435069</id>
	<title>Profitable?</title>
	<author>Casandro</author>
	<datestamp>1245695100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I mean can't it be made profitable? I mean just lower the production amounts and raise the price so it's profitable. If it is, you have a source of profit. It may not be huge, but it's something. The equipment already has been paid for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I mean ca n't it be made profitable ?
I mean just lower the production amounts and raise the price so it 's profitable .
If it is , you have a source of profit .
It may not be huge , but it 's something .
The equipment already has been paid for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I mean can't it be made profitable?
I mean just lower the production amounts and raise the price so it's profitable.
If it is, you have a source of profit.
It may not be huge, but it's something.
The equipment already has been paid for.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427797</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Kickasso</author>
	<datestamp>1245661440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A decent film SLR is still about $500.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A decent film SLR is still about $ 500 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A decent film SLR is still about $500.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428265</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1245663180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;Now, a full-size dSLR is at least $2k.</p><p>The results you get from the average $300 Canon Powershot are far better than what you had with your $500 SLR back in the day, especially considering the lenses you could afford then.  A Canon 1D or whatever full-frame DSLR is pro-level, but I don't know anyone who doesn't turn livid at the L-series lens prices.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Now , a full-size dSLR is at least $ 2k.The results you get from the average $ 300 Canon Powershot are far better than what you had with your $ 500 SLR back in the day , especially considering the lenses you could afford then .
A Canon 1D or whatever full-frame DSLR is pro-level , but I do n't know anyone who does n't turn livid at the L-series lens prices .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;Now, a full-size dSLR is at least $2k.The results you get from the average $300 Canon Powershot are far better than what you had with your $500 SLR back in the day, especially considering the lenses you could afford then.
A Canon 1D or whatever full-frame DSLR is pro-level, but I don't know anyone who doesn't turn livid at the L-series lens prices.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>It is much, much easier to back up digital for 100 years than it is to back up film.
<br> <br>
Film stock is extremely unstable. One of the major problems in preserving old motion pictures is that the reels of film fuse together. (In fact, most active film restoration projects involve carefully digitizing the movies for preservation). If you have carefully separated your negatives, and store them in a temperature and humidity controlled environment, you can slow down the deterioration, but not stop it altogether.
<br> <br>
Prints from both digital and film sources are essentially identical - if you use the best technologies (pH neutral paper, etc) your prints from both medium will last about the same time. Unfortunately, of course, people tend to use the cheapest solution, not the best available solution - but that is a market choice, not a failing of the technology involved.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is much , much easier to back up digital for 100 years than it is to back up film .
Film stock is extremely unstable .
One of the major problems in preserving old motion pictures is that the reels of film fuse together .
( In fact , most active film restoration projects involve carefully digitizing the movies for preservation ) .
If you have carefully separated your negatives , and store them in a temperature and humidity controlled environment , you can slow down the deterioration , but not stop it altogether .
Prints from both digital and film sources are essentially identical - if you use the best technologies ( pH neutral paper , etc ) your prints from both medium will last about the same time .
Unfortunately , of course , people tend to use the cheapest solution , not the best available solution - but that is a market choice , not a failing of the technology involved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is much, much easier to back up digital for 100 years than it is to back up film.
Film stock is extremely unstable.
One of the major problems in preserving old motion pictures is that the reels of film fuse together.
(In fact, most active film restoration projects involve carefully digitizing the movies for preservation).
If you have carefully separated your negatives, and store them in a temperature and humidity controlled environment, you can slow down the deterioration, but not stop it altogether.
Prints from both digital and film sources are essentially identical - if you use the best technologies (pH neutral paper, etc) your prints from both medium will last about the same time.
Unfortunately, of course, people tend to use the cheapest solution, not the best available solution - but that is a market choice, not a failing of the technology involved.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427405</id>
	<title>Suing your consumer base</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>sounds like changing with the times to me</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>sounds like changing with the times to me</tokentext>
<sentencetext>sounds like changing with the times to me</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433219</id>
	<title>Re:Polaroid To Bring Back Polaroids</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245682560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Polaroid is trying to bring back the instant photo, in the form of a small digital camera/printer that can instantly print your digital photo.  Sounds pretty cool actually!  <a href="http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20090527/polaroid-pogo-bounces-june/" title="coolest-gadgets.com" rel="nofollow">Polaroid Pogo</a> [coolest-gadgets.com]</p> </div><p>I was so excited about the Pogo, but that was before I learned about the neo-polariods being flimsy stickers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Polaroid is trying to bring back the instant photo , in the form of a small digital camera/printer that can instantly print your digital photo .
Sounds pretty cool actually !
Polaroid Pogo [ coolest-gadgets.com ] I was so excited about the Pogo , but that was before I learned about the neo-polariods being flimsy stickers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polaroid is trying to bring back the instant photo, in the form of a small digital camera/printer that can instantly print your digital photo.
Sounds pretty cool actually!
Polaroid Pogo [coolest-gadgets.com] I was so excited about the Pogo, but that was before I learned about the neo-polariods being flimsy stickers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427971</id>
	<title>Re:Take Kodachrome if you must ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Mama don't take my cordless phone awaaaya</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Mama do n't take my cordless phone awaaaya</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mama don't take my cordless phone awaaaya</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435849</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>blackest\_k</author>
	<datestamp>1245789360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Last year I bought an SLR camera at a carboot and it's working fine with some good lenses. I always wanted one when I was a kid.

 However I compromise on developing by getting the film processed only and get a copy on CD without prints.
It's really prints which cost and most pictures will have some faults over/under exposed, badly framed, out of focus, tilted ect. So why pay for them to be made into prints.

Once I have my CD I can then proceed to clean my photo's much the same as anyone would with a digital camera.
But why bother with an outdated format? Quite simply the camera and lenses produce images of a far greater quality than I could get with most affordable digital camera's and I can get a photo in lighting conditions most digital camera's fail in. I will obviously take less photo's than with a digital camera, but that camera captures more good quality images.

Cost wise it probably costs me around the same as a packet of cigarettes or a pint or two.

A professional photographer will spend a lot of money on a really good digital camera and gets the results fast which is often needed, but for an amateur like me thats not needed and I get more quality shot's with my SLR without needing to spend 100's if not 1000's to get a digital equivalent. To be really honest it's mostly about the quality of the lenses, in theory i could get a digital slr that takes my lenses.

That doesn't mean I don't use digital camera's at all, but you can guess which ones my favorite.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Last year I bought an SLR camera at a carboot and it 's working fine with some good lenses .
I always wanted one when I was a kid .
However I compromise on developing by getting the film processed only and get a copy on CD without prints .
It 's really prints which cost and most pictures will have some faults over/under exposed , badly framed , out of focus , tilted ect .
So why pay for them to be made into prints .
Once I have my CD I can then proceed to clean my photo 's much the same as anyone would with a digital camera .
But why bother with an outdated format ?
Quite simply the camera and lenses produce images of a far greater quality than I could get with most affordable digital camera 's and I can get a photo in lighting conditions most digital camera 's fail in .
I will obviously take less photo 's than with a digital camera , but that camera captures more good quality images .
Cost wise it probably costs me around the same as a packet of cigarettes or a pint or two .
A professional photographer will spend a lot of money on a really good digital camera and gets the results fast which is often needed , but for an amateur like me thats not needed and I get more quality shot 's with my SLR without needing to spend 100 's if not 1000 's to get a digital equivalent .
To be really honest it 's mostly about the quality of the lenses , in theory i could get a digital slr that takes my lenses .
That does n't mean I do n't use digital camera 's at all , but you can guess which ones my favorite .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Last year I bought an SLR camera at a carboot and it's working fine with some good lenses.
I always wanted one when I was a kid.
However I compromise on developing by getting the film processed only and get a copy on CD without prints.
It's really prints which cost and most pictures will have some faults over/under exposed, badly framed, out of focus, tilted ect.
So why pay for them to be made into prints.
Once I have my CD I can then proceed to clean my photo's much the same as anyone would with a digital camera.
But why bother with an outdated format?
Quite simply the camera and lenses produce images of a far greater quality than I could get with most affordable digital camera's and I can get a photo in lighting conditions most digital camera's fail in.
I will obviously take less photo's than with a digital camera, but that camera captures more good quality images.
Cost wise it probably costs me around the same as a packet of cigarettes or a pint or two.
A professional photographer will spend a lot of money on a really good digital camera and gets the results fast which is often needed, but for an amateur like me thats not needed and I get more quality shot's with my SLR without needing to spend 100's if not 1000's to get a digital equivalent.
To be really honest it's mostly about the quality of the lenses, in theory i could get a digital slr that takes my lenses.
That doesn't mean I don't use digital camera's at all, but you can guess which ones my favorite.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429943</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428241</id>
	<title>demand: dutch Polariod plant trying to reinvent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes, the workers bought the last Polariod one-step film plant in Holland, days before the machinery was to be junked, and are trying to reinvent the material.</p><p>seems Polaroid used up all the critical chemicals before dumping the product, the process is basically lost.</p><p>that won't happen for Kodachrome.  initially only Kodak processed the film, nobody else, they had at one time 28 labs nationwide.  then they outsourced the processing lab at Kansas city to Duane's, and closed the rest.</p><p>bet the last film batch was made a couple years ago, and when that's out, that's it.</p><p>hint:  like the faces of image orthicons, film kept in a freezer does not deteriorate if left in the dehydrated factory package.  you could conceivably freeze up all the K-chrome you can find.</p><p>but it's a 38 step process requiring, again, specialized chemicals made for the purpose and precise machinery to process K-chrome, so when Duane's folds its lab in 2010, all you have is filmsicles.  they'd just be ornaments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes , the workers bought the last Polariod one-step film plant in Holland , days before the machinery was to be junked , and are trying to reinvent the material.seems Polaroid used up all the critical chemicals before dumping the product , the process is basically lost.that wo n't happen for Kodachrome .
initially only Kodak processed the film , nobody else , they had at one time 28 labs nationwide .
then they outsourced the processing lab at Kansas city to Duane 's , and closed the rest.bet the last film batch was made a couple years ago , and when that 's out , that 's it.hint : like the faces of image orthicons , film kept in a freezer does not deteriorate if left in the dehydrated factory package .
you could conceivably freeze up all the K-chrome you can find.but it 's a 38 step process requiring , again , specialized chemicals made for the purpose and precise machinery to process K-chrome , so when Duane 's folds its lab in 2010 , all you have is filmsicles .
they 'd just be ornaments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes, the workers bought the last Polariod one-step film plant in Holland, days before the machinery was to be junked, and are trying to reinvent the material.seems Polaroid used up all the critical chemicals before dumping the product, the process is basically lost.that won't happen for Kodachrome.
initially only Kodak processed the film, nobody else, they had at one time 28 labs nationwide.
then they outsourced the processing lab at Kansas city to Duane's, and closed the rest.bet the last film batch was made a couple years ago, and when that's out, that's it.hint:  like the faces of image orthicons, film kept in a freezer does not deteriorate if left in the dehydrated factory package.
you could conceivably freeze up all the K-chrome you can find.but it's a 38 step process requiring, again, specialized chemicals made for the purpose and precise machinery to process K-chrome, so when Duane's folds its lab in 2010, all you have is filmsicles.
they'd just be ornaments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428109</id>
	<title>Polaroid To Bring Back Polaroids</title>
	<author>travdaddy</author>
	<datestamp>1245662520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Polaroid is trying to bring back the instant photo, in the form of a small digital camera/printer that can instantly print your digital photo.  Sounds pretty cool actually!  <a href="http://www.coolest-gadgets.com/20090527/polaroid-pogo-bounces-june/" title="coolest-gadgets.com">Polaroid Pogo</a> [coolest-gadgets.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Polaroid is trying to bring back the instant photo , in the form of a small digital camera/printer that can instantly print your digital photo .
Sounds pretty cool actually !
Polaroid Pogo [ coolest-gadgets.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polaroid is trying to bring back the instant photo, in the form of a small digital camera/printer that can instantly print your digital photo.
Sounds pretty cool actually!
Polaroid Pogo [coolest-gadgets.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427595</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Parent here. I am dumber then i thought. Kodachrome was just an out-dated positive-film technology. No surprise they dropped it. The article is obviously edited to be more controversial than it should be. There is still a whole line of negative and positive Kodak films available, don't sweat it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Parent here .
I am dumber then i thought .
Kodachrome was just an out-dated positive-film technology .
No surprise they dropped it .
The article is obviously edited to be more controversial than it should be .
There is still a whole line of negative and positive Kodak films available , do n't sweat it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Parent here.
I am dumber then i thought.
Kodachrome was just an out-dated positive-film technology.
No surprise they dropped it.
The article is obviously edited to be more controversial than it should be.
There is still a whole line of negative and positive Kodak films available, don't sweat it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</id>
	<title>Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot?</title>
	<author>Rude Turnip</author>
	<datestamp>1245662280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While we're lamenting the death of a tiny segment of Kodak's business, I have a far more urgent crisis.  Can anyone recommend a digital point and shoot with RAW support for about $200-300?  My GF's birthday is this weekend and I need to scramble.  Thank you!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While we 're lamenting the death of a tiny segment of Kodak 's business , I have a far more urgent crisis .
Can anyone recommend a digital point and shoot with RAW support for about $ 200-300 ?
My GF 's birthday is this weekend and I need to scramble .
Thank you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While we're lamenting the death of a tiny segment of Kodak's business, I have a far more urgent crisis.
Can anyone recommend a digital point and shoot with RAW support for about $200-300?
My GF's birthday is this weekend and I need to scramble.
Thank you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428213</id>
	<title>Re:Photography students in the digital age</title>
	<author>CrackedButter</author>
	<datestamp>1245662940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In my uni, it is whatever they can get their hands on, usually their dead granddads kit or their parents.  I've seen first start on medium format, holga or a Canon A1.  I understand your point though since I started on the K1000 as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my uni , it is whatever they can get their hands on , usually their dead granddads kit or their parents .
I 've seen first start on medium format , holga or a Canon A1 .
I understand your point though since I started on the K1000 as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my uni, it is whatever they can get their hands on, usually their dead granddads kit or their parents.
I've seen first start on medium format, holga or a Canon A1.
I understand your point though since I started on the K1000 as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427763</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>ergo98</author>
	<datestamp>1245661320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You can make great photos with a low-end digital camera.</p><p>The hardware seldom contains creative potential. Yet digital allows you to experiment without blowing the bank.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You can make great photos with a low-end digital camera.The hardware seldom contains creative potential .
Yet digital allows you to experiment without blowing the bank .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You can make great photos with a low-end digital camera.The hardware seldom contains creative potential.
Yet digital allows you to experiment without blowing the bank.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428743</id>
	<title>bummer</title>
	<author>JackSpratts</author>
	<datestamp>1245664620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>perfect color, contrast and detail. the look was rich, the colors fat. slow yes but the best 35mm film i ever shot. my slides from the seventies still look gorgeous. i will miss this film, the clack of the projector loading a new image and the smoke drifting through the light.</htmltext>
<tokenext>perfect color , contrast and detail .
the look was rich , the colors fat .
slow yes but the best 35mm film i ever shot .
my slides from the seventies still look gorgeous .
i will miss this film , the clack of the projector loading a new image and the smoke drifting through the light .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>perfect color, contrast and detail.
the look was rich, the colors fat.
slow yes but the best 35mm film i ever shot.
my slides from the seventies still look gorgeous.
i will miss this film, the clack of the projector loading a new image and the smoke drifting through the light.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428525</id>
	<title>knows how to change with the times</title>
	<author>Eric Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1245663960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>

That's like saying that the buggy whip industry knew how to change with the times.
</p><p>
What they know is that Kodachrome isn't selling as well as it used to, therefore it's not worthwhile for them to manufacture it any more.  It's not due to any extreme cleverness or long term strategic planning on their part.
</p><p>
This is basically the same way that Intel got out of the DRAM business.  If you read Grove's book <i>Only the Paranoid Survive</i>, he describes how Intel avoided losing their shirts in the DRAM wars not by being extremely clever in forseeing that the DRAM market was going to become brutally competitive, but by their standard business planning based on costs of wafer starts and profits of various kinds of products.  When DRAM became less profitable, fewer wafer starts were allocated to DRAM and more allocated to other products, eventually to the point that they were making almost no DRAM.  They realized what had happened AFTER the fact.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times .
That 's like saying that the buggy whip industry knew how to change with the times .
What they know is that Kodachrome is n't selling as well as it used to , therefore it 's not worthwhile for them to manufacture it any more .
It 's not due to any extreme cleverness or long term strategic planning on their part .
This is basically the same way that Intel got out of the DRAM business .
If you read Grove 's book Only the Paranoid Survive , he describes how Intel avoided losing their shirts in the DRAM wars not by being extremely clever in forseeing that the DRAM market was going to become brutally competitive , but by their standard business planning based on costs of wafer starts and profits of various kinds of products .
When DRAM became less profitable , fewer wafer starts were allocated to DRAM and more allocated to other products , eventually to the point that they were making almost no DRAM .
They realized what had happened AFTER the fact .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times.
That's like saying that the buggy whip industry knew how to change with the times.
What they know is that Kodachrome isn't selling as well as it used to, therefore it's not worthwhile for them to manufacture it any more.
It's not due to any extreme cleverness or long term strategic planning on their part.
This is basically the same way that Intel got out of the DRAM business.
If you read Grove's book Only the Paranoid Survive, he describes how Intel avoided losing their shirts in the DRAM wars not by being extremely clever in forseeing that the DRAM market was going to become brutally competitive, but by their standard business planning based on costs of wafer starts and profits of various kinds of products.
When DRAM became less profitable, fewer wafer starts were allocated to DRAM and more allocated to other products, eventually to the point that they were making almost no DRAM.
They realized what had happened AFTER the fact.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431029</id>
	<title>Shouldn't be surprised but still.......</title>
	<author>clark31</author>
	<datestamp>1245672900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As someone who shoots digital and slide film I enjoy loading and shooting Kodachrome 64 in my old Yashica Electro. Sure, the slides require more effort (loading, unloading then sending off to Dwayne's, then waiting). And of course they don't all turn out great. But the ones that do are just beautiful. Full rich heavily saturated colors. The digital shots always  seem to look somewhat "sterile". I suppose due to the high quality and all. Oh well....... end of an era to be sure. Thanks Kodak for keeping it alive as long as you did.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As someone who shoots digital and slide film I enjoy loading and shooting Kodachrome 64 in my old Yashica Electro .
Sure , the slides require more effort ( loading , unloading then sending off to Dwayne 's , then waiting ) .
And of course they do n't all turn out great .
But the ones that do are just beautiful .
Full rich heavily saturated colors .
The digital shots always seem to look somewhat " sterile " .
I suppose due to the high quality and all .
Oh well....... end of an era to be sure .
Thanks Kodak for keeping it alive as long as you did .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As someone who shoots digital and slide film I enjoy loading and shooting Kodachrome 64 in my old Yashica Electro.
Sure, the slides require more effort (loading, unloading then sending off to Dwayne's, then waiting).
And of course they don't all turn out great.
But the ones that do are just beautiful.
Full rich heavily saturated colors.
The digital shots always  seem to look somewhat "sterile".
I suppose due to the high quality and all.
Oh well....... end of an era to be sure.
Thanks Kodak for keeping it alive as long as you did.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429307</id>
	<title>Re:Not "analog"</title>
	<author>TeknoHog</author>
	<datestamp>1245666540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with your point, but I still see a problem with the usage of analog vs. digital in this case. It's as if film and digital were the only alternatives and diametric opposites. For example, there have been <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital\_camera#Analog\_electronic\_cameras" title="wikipedia.org">analog electronic cameras</a> [wikipedia.org], and there are <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ac3#Dolby\_Technologies\_in\_packaged\_media\_formats" title="wikipedia.org">digital audio formats stored on film</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with your point , but I still see a problem with the usage of analog vs. digital in this case .
It 's as if film and digital were the only alternatives and diametric opposites .
For example , there have been analog electronic cameras [ wikipedia.org ] , and there are digital audio formats stored on film [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with your point, but I still see a problem with the usage of analog vs. digital in this case.
It's as if film and digital were the only alternatives and diametric opposites.
For example, there have been analog electronic cameras [wikipedia.org], and there are digital audio formats stored on film [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428673</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428235</id>
	<title>Not "analog"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not "analog," but optical.  Film is storing the actual picture, not an electromagnetic representation on magnetic tape.  It should be noted that all that is not digital is not necessarily "analog."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not " analog , " but optical .
Film is storing the actual picture , not an electromagnetic representation on magnetic tape .
It should be noted that all that is not digital is not necessarily " analog .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not "analog," but optical.
Film is storing the actual picture, not an electromagnetic representation on magnetic tape.
It should be noted that all that is not digital is not necessarily "analog.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428783</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1245664680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There's not much point in RAW mode for majority of point and shoots. You should instead simply try to get the model with the best sensor possible, because that's what really differentiates various brands/models in this price segment.</p><p>Personally, I prefer Fuji Finepix F-series: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm\_FinePix\_F-series" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm\_FinePix\_F-series</a> [wikipedia.org] (mostly because if I use flash it's for <b>correcting</b> the light; not for making the photograph possible at all, as most people do...with quite "sterile" results)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's not much point in RAW mode for majority of point and shoots .
You should instead simply try to get the model with the best sensor possible , because that 's what really differentiates various brands/models in this price segment.Personally , I prefer Fuji Finepix F-series : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm \ _FinePix \ _F-series [ wikipedia.org ] ( mostly because if I use flash it 's for correcting the light ; not for making the photograph possible at all , as most people do...with quite " sterile " results )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's not much point in RAW mode for majority of point and shoots.
You should instead simply try to get the model with the best sensor possible, because that's what really differentiates various brands/models in this price segment.Personally, I prefer Fuji Finepix F-series: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm\_FinePix\_F-series [wikipedia.org] (mostly because if I use flash it's for correcting the light; not for making the photograph possible at all, as most people do...with quite "sterile" results)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427625</id>
	<title>Eastman Kodak Company...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245704040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The <a href="http://search.buffalo.bbb.org/codbrep.html?id=31672" title="bbb.org">Better Business Bureau</a> [bbb.org] has a few things to say about Kodak.</p><p>Notice that, in order to lose accreditation with the BBB, you basically have to perform remarkably poorly <em>after</em> you've been informed that your customers are pissed off and you're under review.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Better Business Bureau [ bbb.org ] has a few things to say about Kodak.Notice that , in order to lose accreditation with the BBB , you basically have to perform remarkably poorly after you 've been informed that your customers are pissed off and you 're under review .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Better Business Bureau [bbb.org] has a few things to say about Kodak.Notice that, in order to lose accreditation with the BBB, you basically have to perform remarkably poorly after you've been informed that your customers are pissed off and you're under review.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430193</id>
	<title>FILM is not dead it just smells funny</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245669900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>as many have already pointed out Kodachrome has been replaced by better film<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... thats the <b>real story here</b> it has nothing to do with dropping film for digital... kodak has just released Ektar and the take up has been big. Fuji just re-released Velvia in ISO50<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...<br>If film is nolonger cost effective why have Kodak spend so much R&amp;D money on Ektar ?</p><p>There is a film revival happeing at the moment as professionals and serious amateurs return to film, for many reasons.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as many have already pointed out Kodachrome has been replaced by better film ... thats the real story here it has nothing to do with dropping film for digital... kodak has just released Ektar and the take up has been big .
Fuji just re-released Velvia in ISO50 ...If film is nolonger cost effective why have Kodak spend so much R&amp;D money on Ektar ? There is a film revival happeing at the moment as professionals and serious amateurs return to film , for many reasons .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>as many have already pointed out Kodachrome has been replaced by better film ... thats the real story here it has nothing to do with dropping film for digital... kodak has just released Ektar and the take up has been big.
Fuji just re-released Velvia in ISO50 ...If film is nolonger cost effective why have Kodak spend so much R&amp;D money on Ektar ?There is a film revival happeing at the moment as professionals and serious amateurs return to film, for many reasons.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28434865</id>
	<title>Re:Your camera doesn't matter.</title>
	<author>Thalagyrt</author>
	<datestamp>1245693240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True to an extent, but you do realize that Ken Rockwell's site is a satire, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True to an extent , but you do realize that Ken Rockwell 's site is a satire , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True to an extent, but you do realize that Ken Rockwell's site is a satire, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428543</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428371</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>multisync</author>
	<datestamp>1245663480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Can anyone recommend a digital point and shoot with RAW support for about $200-300?</p></div></blockquote><p>I don't know what they're retailing for where you live, but the Nikon D40 is a great entry-level DSLR. It's small and lightweight, which might appeal to your girlfriend, it comes with a decent 18-50 mm kit lens and shoots RAW, although I generally set mine to shoot Fine quality jpeg.</p><p>I would also suggest checking out <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/index.htm" title="kenrockwell.com">Ken Rockwell's</a> [kenrockwell.com] site. He has great reviews and how-to articles that may be helpful before and after your purchase. I'm not connected to his site in any way, but consult it frequently.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Can anyone recommend a digital point and shoot with RAW support for about $ 200-300 ? I do n't know what they 're retailing for where you live , but the Nikon D40 is a great entry-level DSLR .
It 's small and lightweight , which might appeal to your girlfriend , it comes with a decent 18-50 mm kit lens and shoots RAW , although I generally set mine to shoot Fine quality jpeg.I would also suggest checking out Ken Rockwell 's [ kenrockwell.com ] site .
He has great reviews and how-to articles that may be helpful before and after your purchase .
I 'm not connected to his site in any way , but consult it frequently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can anyone recommend a digital point and shoot with RAW support for about $200-300?I don't know what they're retailing for where you live, but the Nikon D40 is a great entry-level DSLR.
It's small and lightweight, which might appeal to your girlfriend, it comes with a decent 18-50 mm kit lens and shoots RAW, although I generally set mine to shoot Fine quality jpeg.I would also suggest checking out Ken Rockwell's [kenrockwell.com] site.
He has great reviews and how-to articles that may be helpful before and after your purchase.
I'm not connected to his site in any way, but consult it frequently.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433463</id>
	<title>Kodachrome - cousin of 3 strip Technicolor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245684060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Kodachrome uses a process somewhat similar to 3 strip Technicolor. Without a doubt, no other
slide film renders colors in such lovely saturation and balance. Like Technicolor, Kodachrome is better than real life. No other still film renders such vibrant reds, something at which the Ektachrome stock fails miserably. Instead of the vibrant reds, deep blues,  and fine grain of Kodachrome, the  Ektachrome film only provides greenish hued, grainy, pastel colors in comparison.<br> <br>
And in archival terms, no other widely available still film color stock is as stable and long lasting. Long after the last Ektachrome has faded into flamingo shades of pink pastel, Kodachrome colors will remain almost as vibrant as the day it first left the processing lab.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodachrome uses a process somewhat similar to 3 strip Technicolor .
Without a doubt , no other slide film renders colors in such lovely saturation and balance .
Like Technicolor , Kodachrome is better than real life .
No other still film renders such vibrant reds , something at which the Ektachrome stock fails miserably .
Instead of the vibrant reds , deep blues , and fine grain of Kodachrome , the Ektachrome film only provides greenish hued , grainy , pastel colors in comparison .
And in archival terms , no other widely available still film color stock is as stable and long lasting .
Long after the last Ektachrome has faded into flamingo shades of pink pastel , Kodachrome colors will remain almost as vibrant as the day it first left the processing lab .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodachrome uses a process somewhat similar to 3 strip Technicolor.
Without a doubt, no other
slide film renders colors in such lovely saturation and balance.
Like Technicolor, Kodachrome is better than real life.
No other still film renders such vibrant reds, something at which the Ektachrome stock fails miserably.
Instead of the vibrant reds, deep blues,  and fine grain of Kodachrome, the  Ektachrome film only provides greenish hued, grainy, pastel colors in comparison.
And in archival terms, no other widely available still film color stock is as stable and long lasting.
Long after the last Ektachrome has faded into flamingo shades of pink pastel, Kodachrome colors will remain almost as vibrant as the day it first left the processing lab.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428329</id>
	<title>Amateur Documents Owe to Kodachrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kodachrome is the only colour film that doesn't fade after decades of storage. While certain flavours of Velvia may technically capture more details, it doesn't stand up to time. In fact, 10-15 year old Velvia slides have washed away it's 'accurate' colours while my dad's kodachrome from the 40s and 50s looks like it was shot yesterday. Without Kodachrome, generations of colour photographs would not exist. Obviously, the famous photos would still survive (eg anything from National Geographic), but snapshots and other amateur photos would now be lost had they been shot on any other film. </p><p>Apart from it's longevity, Kodachrome also has beautiful colour rendition. Both of those reasons is why it is the only film I reach for when I want colour. Anything worth recording isn't worth losing to an unstable film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodachrome is the only colour film that does n't fade after decades of storage .
While certain flavours of Velvia may technically capture more details , it does n't stand up to time .
In fact , 10-15 year old Velvia slides have washed away it 's 'accurate ' colours while my dad 's kodachrome from the 40s and 50s looks like it was shot yesterday .
Without Kodachrome , generations of colour photographs would not exist .
Obviously , the famous photos would still survive ( eg anything from National Geographic ) , but snapshots and other amateur photos would now be lost had they been shot on any other film .
Apart from it 's longevity , Kodachrome also has beautiful colour rendition .
Both of those reasons is why it is the only film I reach for when I want colour .
Anything worth recording is n't worth losing to an unstable film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodachrome is the only colour film that doesn't fade after decades of storage.
While certain flavours of Velvia may technically capture more details, it doesn't stand up to time.
In fact, 10-15 year old Velvia slides have washed away it's 'accurate' colours while my dad's kodachrome from the 40s and 50s looks like it was shot yesterday.
Without Kodachrome, generations of colour photographs would not exist.
Obviously, the famous photos would still survive (eg anything from National Geographic), but snapshots and other amateur photos would now be lost had they been shot on any other film.
Apart from it's longevity, Kodachrome also has beautiful colour rendition.
Both of those reasons is why it is the only film I reach for when I want colour.
Anything worth recording isn't worth losing to an unstable film.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428297</id>
	<title>Why Kodachrome was good...</title>
	<author>CaptainOfSpray</author>
	<datestamp>1245663240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>was not just that the colours were great, but also that the grain was tiny. I saw an 8-foot high poster in a photo exhibition, where the grain was not visible until you walked up to it, and asked the photographer how he'd done it. "Enlarged from a single 35-mm Kodachrome" was the reply.  I walked away with a new respect for Kodachrome, the film against which all others are measured and found wanting.</htmltext>
<tokenext>was not just that the colours were great , but also that the grain was tiny .
I saw an 8-foot high poster in a photo exhibition , where the grain was not visible until you walked up to it , and asked the photographer how he 'd done it .
" Enlarged from a single 35-mm Kodachrome " was the reply .
I walked away with a new respect for Kodachrome , the film against which all others are measured and found wanting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>was not just that the colours were great, but also that the grain was tiny.
I saw an 8-foot high poster in a photo exhibition, where the grain was not visible until you walked up to it, and asked the photographer how he'd done it.
"Enlarged from a single 35-mm Kodachrome" was the reply.
I walked away with a new respect for Kodachrome, the film against which all others are measured and found wanting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431523</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>An dochasac</author>
	<datestamp>1245674460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I've been scanning my family's color photographs preferentially over the older black and whites because many of them which are not even 30 years old have begun to fade into nothing.</p></div><p>
Good plan.  While the studies showing well stored Kodochrome longevity of over 200 years and silver B&amp;W longevity approaching 1000 years haven't been proven.  I've personally printed from glass negatives more than 70 years old and discovered that the camera optics were better back then (or rather, given F22 and a huge negative, the prints of a typical beach scene showed far more detail than any consumer level digital camera!

<br> <br>Kodochrome has also proven itself as <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/05/arts/design/05colo.html?\_r=1&amp;8hpib\%22\%20target=\%22NewWindow" title="nytimes.com">these photos taken during the Great Depression demonstrate.</a> [nytimes.com]  Honestly, we didn't need to remake the Great Depression in color, <a href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/09/05/arts/05colo-slide5.jpg" title="nytimes.com">it has already been filmed in glorious Kodachrome color.</a> [nytimes.com]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been scanning my family 's color photographs preferentially over the older black and whites because many of them which are not even 30 years old have begun to fade into nothing .
Good plan .
While the studies showing well stored Kodochrome longevity of over 200 years and silver B&amp;W longevity approaching 1000 years have n't been proven .
I 've personally printed from glass negatives more than 70 years old and discovered that the camera optics were better back then ( or rather , given F22 and a huge negative , the prints of a typical beach scene showed far more detail than any consumer level digital camera !
Kodochrome has also proven itself as these photos taken during the Great Depression demonstrate .
[ nytimes.com ] Honestly , we did n't need to remake the Great Depression in color , it has already been filmed in glorious Kodachrome color .
[ nytimes.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been scanning my family's color photographs preferentially over the older black and whites because many of them which are not even 30 years old have begun to fade into nothing.
Good plan.
While the studies showing well stored Kodochrome longevity of over 200 years and silver B&amp;W longevity approaching 1000 years haven't been proven.
I've personally printed from glass negatives more than 70 years old and discovered that the camera optics were better back then (or rather, given F22 and a huge negative, the prints of a typical beach scene showed far more detail than any consumer level digital camera!
Kodochrome has also proven itself as these photos taken during the Great Depression demonstrate.
[nytimes.com]  Honestly, we didn't need to remake the Great Depression in color, it has already been filmed in glorious Kodachrome color.
[nytimes.com]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430329</id>
	<title>Hey hey... My my... Acetate film will never die</title>
	<author>String Theory</author>
	<datestamp>1245670380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember when Kodachrome 200 came out. Just around the time me, a kid of 21, had finally saved up enough to buy that top of the line Nikon F3 HP. I scarcely had anything else in that camera for 25 years. I always liked that warm golden color palette that Kodachrome gave you. Ektachrome just didn't do what Kodachrome did.</p><p>Kodachrome we knew thee well. Moved on to better technology digital with the times. But you'll always hold that special place in our hearts. How many fond memories you have left us.</p><p>Film will never go away. It will fade to the point of only one or two manufacturers making a small handful of types then the wake-up call will sound: Dying Medium Here! There may be no more!</p><p>Then there will develop (no pun intended) a small but determined movement dedicated to using and preserving the "old way" of traditional photography at any cost. And "at any cost" will allow those one or two manufacturers to keep making that small handful of types for what has essentially become a novelty market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember when Kodachrome 200 came out .
Just around the time me , a kid of 21 , had finally saved up enough to buy that top of the line Nikon F3 HP .
I scarcely had anything else in that camera for 25 years .
I always liked that warm golden color palette that Kodachrome gave you .
Ektachrome just did n't do what Kodachrome did.Kodachrome we knew thee well .
Moved on to better technology digital with the times .
But you 'll always hold that special place in our hearts .
How many fond memories you have left us.Film will never go away .
It will fade to the point of only one or two manufacturers making a small handful of types then the wake-up call will sound : Dying Medium Here !
There may be no more ! Then there will develop ( no pun intended ) a small but determined movement dedicated to using and preserving the " old way " of traditional photography at any cost .
And " at any cost " will allow those one or two manufacturers to keep making that small handful of types for what has essentially become a novelty market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember when Kodachrome 200 came out.
Just around the time me, a kid of 21, had finally saved up enough to buy that top of the line Nikon F3 HP.
I scarcely had anything else in that camera for 25 years.
I always liked that warm golden color palette that Kodachrome gave you.
Ektachrome just didn't do what Kodachrome did.Kodachrome we knew thee well.
Moved on to better technology digital with the times.
But you'll always hold that special place in our hearts.
How many fond memories you have left us.Film will never go away.
It will fade to the point of only one or two manufacturers making a small handful of types then the wake-up call will sound: Dying Medium Here!
There may be no more!Then there will develop (no pun intended) a small but determined movement dedicated to using and preserving the "old way" of traditional photography at any cost.
And "at any cost" will allow those one or two manufacturers to keep making that small handful of types for what has essentially become a novelty market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430129</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1245669660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bought an Olympus E-510 for $400 along with two lenses, and paid another $220 for a 600mm equivalent supertelephoto lens to shoot birds with (a Circuit City closeout; normal new price is $300). You can be a lot cheaper than that by buying just the body and getting cheap (but good) old manual lenses and an adapter.</p><p>So this is not true, unless you mean "full-frame" by "full-size"... and you certainly don't need a full-frame DSLR to take great photos. Even a quarter-frame DSLR like the Olympus mentioned above has better low-light performance than film -- I have ISO 800 enlargements that look great.</p><p>For that matter, you can make great photos on much cheaper digital cameras. Before the Olympus I had a Panasonic FZ50 which I bought for $260 or so. I have 16x20" prints from it hanging on my walls that look stunning. It's not an SLR, so there are the headaches of an electronic viewfinder and so on... but it certainly makes great prints if you can stay at ISO 100.</p><p>You don't need to pay Canon $2k to make good digital pictures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bought an Olympus E-510 for $ 400 along with two lenses , and paid another $ 220 for a 600mm equivalent supertelephoto lens to shoot birds with ( a Circuit City closeout ; normal new price is $ 300 ) .
You can be a lot cheaper than that by buying just the body and getting cheap ( but good ) old manual lenses and an adapter.So this is not true , unless you mean " full-frame " by " full-size " ... and you certainly do n't need a full-frame DSLR to take great photos .
Even a quarter-frame DSLR like the Olympus mentioned above has better low-light performance than film -- I have ISO 800 enlargements that look great.For that matter , you can make great photos on much cheaper digital cameras .
Before the Olympus I had a Panasonic FZ50 which I bought for $ 260 or so .
I have 16x20 " prints from it hanging on my walls that look stunning .
It 's not an SLR , so there are the headaches of an electronic viewfinder and so on... but it certainly makes great prints if you can stay at ISO 100.You do n't need to pay Canon $ 2k to make good digital pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bought an Olympus E-510 for $400 along with two lenses, and paid another $220 for a 600mm equivalent supertelephoto lens to shoot birds with (a Circuit City closeout; normal new price is $300).
You can be a lot cheaper than that by buying just the body and getting cheap (but good) old manual lenses and an adapter.So this is not true, unless you mean "full-frame" by "full-size"... and you certainly don't need a full-frame DSLR to take great photos.
Even a quarter-frame DSLR like the Olympus mentioned above has better low-light performance than film -- I have ISO 800 enlargements that look great.For that matter, you can make great photos on much cheaper digital cameras.
Before the Olympus I had a Panasonic FZ50 which I bought for $260 or so.
I have 16x20" prints from it hanging on my walls that look stunning.
It's not an SLR, so there are the headaches of an electronic viewfinder and so on... but it certainly makes great prints if you can stay at ISO 100.You don't need to pay Canon $2k to make good digital pictures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431659</id>
	<title>Re:they still make ektachrome</title>
	<author>HTH NE1</author>
	<datestamp>1245675000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>in all of its dreary blue fuzziness.</p><p>Kodachrome was like smoking pot.</p><p>Fuji is like doing acid.</p><p>Agfa is like a rainy day...</p> </div><p>Cerulean blue is like a gentle breeze.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>in all of its dreary blue fuzziness.Kodachrome was like smoking pot.Fuji is like doing acid.Agfa is like a rainy day... Cerulean blue is like a gentle breeze .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in all of its dreary blue fuzziness.Kodachrome was like smoking pot.Fuji is like doing acid.Agfa is like a rainy day... Cerulean blue is like a gentle breeze.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428073</id>
	<title>Re:Take Kodachrome if you must ...</title>
	<author>jadedoto</author>
	<datestamp>1245662340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Fuji brought it back (because of a massive uproar) after changing the formula a little bit. I personally don't like the tones in the new film as much.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:\</htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuji brought it back ( because of a massive uproar ) after changing the formula a little bit .
I personally do n't like the tones in the new film as much .
: \</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuji brought it back (because of a massive uproar) after changing the formula a little bit.
I personally don't like the tones in the new film as much.
:\</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28436127</id>
	<title>Re:Where Film Still Beats Digital</title>
	<author>Ma8thew</author>
	<datestamp>1245749460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That's rubbish. For $850, you can get a Nikon D5000, which produces acceptable photos at ISO 6400. There is <b>no equivalent</b> of that in film. Even cheaper DSLRs, like the D40, take fairly good photos at ISO 800. Even that is well beyond film's capabilities.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's rubbish .
For $ 850 , you can get a Nikon D5000 , which produces acceptable photos at ISO 6400 .
There is no equivalent of that in film .
Even cheaper DSLRs , like the D40 , take fairly good photos at ISO 800 .
Even that is well beyond film 's capabilities .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's rubbish.
For $850, you can get a Nikon D5000, which produces acceptable photos at ISO 6400.
There is no equivalent of that in film.
Even cheaper DSLRs, like the D40, take fairly good photos at ISO 800.
Even that is well beyond film's capabilities.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428445</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1245663660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RAW support?</p><p>Probably not out of the box.</p><p>CHDK + one of the PowerShot A series is probably your best bet.</p><p>RAW without manual controls is not the most ideal combination, so except for the SD990 + CHDK, the Elphs are out.  The SD990 is above your budget range.</p><p>Unless you go used, maybe a G9?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>RAW support ? Probably not out of the box.CHDK + one of the PowerShot A series is probably your best bet.RAW without manual controls is not the most ideal combination , so except for the SD990 + CHDK , the Elphs are out .
The SD990 is above your budget range.Unless you go used , maybe a G9 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RAW support?Probably not out of the box.CHDK + one of the PowerShot A series is probably your best bet.RAW without manual controls is not the most ideal combination, so except for the SD990 + CHDK, the Elphs are out.
The SD990 is above your budget range.Unless you go used, maybe a G9?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428127</id>
	<title>Slowly?</title>
	<author>rm999</author>
	<datestamp>1245662580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog"</p><p>I would argue that the transition from analog to digital was actually remarkably quick. The last analog camera I bought was in 2000, I think. Also, cell phones and small point and shoots effectively replaced disposable cameras years ago.</p><p>My guess is the only people who used film after 2005 are *some* professionals and artists.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog " I would argue that the transition from analog to digital was actually remarkably quick .
The last analog camera I bought was in 2000 , I think .
Also , cell phones and small point and shoots effectively replaced disposable cameras years ago.My guess is the only people who used film after 2005 are * some * professionals and artists .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"digital cameras are slowly phasing out analog"I would argue that the transition from analog to digital was actually remarkably quick.
The last analog camera I bought was in 2000, I think.
Also, cell phones and small point and shoots effectively replaced disposable cameras years ago.My guess is the only people who used film after 2005 are *some* professionals and artists.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430881</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>Entropius</author>
	<datestamp>1245672420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sure can.</p><p>I've been using the Panasonic FZ line for a long time. The FZ50 is the best of the line -- very durable, with a super 12x zoom lens. Makes beautiful prints. They don't make them any more, but you can pick a used one up for $325 from keh.com. I bought mine used from them and it was in perfect condition -- they're a respectable outfit.</p><p>The FZ18 and FZ28 are good too (both have RAW), but don't perform quite as well in low light. They're smaller, though -- the FZ50 is a fairly bulky thing (but did I mention how good the images were)?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure can.I 've been using the Panasonic FZ line for a long time .
The FZ50 is the best of the line -- very durable , with a super 12x zoom lens .
Makes beautiful prints .
They do n't make them any more , but you can pick a used one up for $ 325 from keh.com .
I bought mine used from them and it was in perfect condition -- they 're a respectable outfit.The FZ18 and FZ28 are good too ( both have RAW ) , but do n't perform quite as well in low light .
They 're smaller , though -- the FZ50 is a fairly bulky thing ( but did I mention how good the images were ) ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure can.I've been using the Panasonic FZ line for a long time.
The FZ50 is the best of the line -- very durable, with a super 12x zoom lens.
Makes beautiful prints.
They don't make them any more, but you can pick a used one up for $325 from keh.com.
I bought mine used from them and it was in perfect condition -- they're a respectable outfit.The FZ18 and FZ28 are good too (both have RAW), but don't perform quite as well in low light.
They're smaller, though -- the FZ50 is a fairly bulky thing (but did I mention how good the images were)?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433823</id>
	<title>Re:Prism through which we see ourselves &amp; the</title>
	<author>HeadlessNotAHorseman</author>
	<datestamp>1245686160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Kodachrome film looks good enough surely someone will create a photoshop effect or something to replicate it, wouldn't they?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Kodachrome film looks good enough surely someone will create a photoshop effect or something to replicate it , would n't they ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Kodachrome film looks good enough surely someone will create a photoshop effect or something to replicate it, wouldn't they?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429337</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430085</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>alphajim</author>
	<datestamp>1245669420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The film stock you refer to hasn't been used in over 50 years.  It was the old acetate crap that was basically nitrocellulose.  The reason that digitization is the first step in restoration is because it's far easier to apply the fixes in the digital domain than to retouch frame by frame.
<br> <br>
Here's the issue we keep coming back to.  It's not digital vs analog, it's what will be readable in 100 years or even 200.  Digital is fine, except that you'll have to re archive it about every 10 years if you don't want to be orphaned like a 7 track 800bpi tape.  Sure someone COULD build a reader, but who will finance that?  And that assumes your digital media won't drop bits in that timeframe.  We could take an Ansel Adams glass plate from the '30's and print it today.  We could take a 1868 Timothy O'Sullivan photo of the American southwest and print that.  No special tech other than we kept them in stable human habitable conditions.
<br> <br>
Using advanced aging techniques, we can speculate on the lifespan of current inks and papers, but we KNOW that silver salts on glass last over 160 years.  We KNOW silver on ph neutralized linen based papers lasts for over 160 years.  In fact we KNOW that certain inks on treated goat hide will last a couple of thousand years stored in a jar in a cave.
<br> <br>
I'm another one that believes that 200 years from now, historians will be cursing our lack of foresight in archiving not only the major events but the minor "how we lived" ones</htmltext>
<tokenext>The film stock you refer to has n't been used in over 50 years .
It was the old acetate crap that was basically nitrocellulose .
The reason that digitization is the first step in restoration is because it 's far easier to apply the fixes in the digital domain than to retouch frame by frame .
Here 's the issue we keep coming back to .
It 's not digital vs analog , it 's what will be readable in 100 years or even 200 .
Digital is fine , except that you 'll have to re archive it about every 10 years if you do n't want to be orphaned like a 7 track 800bpi tape .
Sure someone COULD build a reader , but who will finance that ?
And that assumes your digital media wo n't drop bits in that timeframe .
We could take an Ansel Adams glass plate from the '30 's and print it today .
We could take a 1868 Timothy O'Sullivan photo of the American southwest and print that .
No special tech other than we kept them in stable human habitable conditions .
Using advanced aging techniques , we can speculate on the lifespan of current inks and papers , but we KNOW that silver salts on glass last over 160 years .
We KNOW silver on ph neutralized linen based papers lasts for over 160 years .
In fact we KNOW that certain inks on treated goat hide will last a couple of thousand years stored in a jar in a cave .
I 'm another one that believes that 200 years from now , historians will be cursing our lack of foresight in archiving not only the major events but the minor " how we lived " ones</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The film stock you refer to hasn't been used in over 50 years.
It was the old acetate crap that was basically nitrocellulose.
The reason that digitization is the first step in restoration is because it's far easier to apply the fixes in the digital domain than to retouch frame by frame.
Here's the issue we keep coming back to.
It's not digital vs analog, it's what will be readable in 100 years or even 200.
Digital is fine, except that you'll have to re archive it about every 10 years if you don't want to be orphaned like a 7 track 800bpi tape.
Sure someone COULD build a reader, but who will finance that?
And that assumes your digital media won't drop bits in that timeframe.
We could take an Ansel Adams glass plate from the '30's and print it today.
We could take a 1868 Timothy O'Sullivan photo of the American southwest and print that.
No special tech other than we kept them in stable human habitable conditions.
Using advanced aging techniques, we can speculate on the lifespan of current inks and papers, but we KNOW that silver salts on glass last over 160 years.
We KNOW silver on ph neutralized linen based papers lasts for over 160 years.
In fact we KNOW that certain inks on treated goat hide will last a couple of thousand years stored in a jar in a cave.
I'm another one that believes that 200 years from now, historians will be cursing our lack of foresight in archiving not only the major events but the minor "how we lived" ones</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428263</id>
	<title>Re:Photography students in the digital age</title>
	<author>NotQuiteInsane</author>
	<datestamp>1245663180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably the Canon 1000D or the Nikon D40 for digital.</p><p>That said, there are plenty of film SLRs on the used market. If I was starting over I'd probably get something along the lines of a Canon EOS 33V (Elan 7N) and a "thrifty fifty" (Canon EF 50mm/f1.8 Mk.II) to start with. After that, improve the lens -- EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6/IS/USM or EF 24-105 f4 L/IS/USM.</p><p>If for some reason I decided to go down the Nikon route instead... I honestly don't know what camera body I'd buy, but I'd stick with a 50mm as a starter -- 50mm lenses were for many years the staple of lens manufacturers. They've had years to perfect the optical quality (prime, aka fixed-focal or "fixed zoom", lenses tend to be quite sharp anyway) and get the price down -- an entry-level Canon or Nikon 50mm lens can be bought new for about a hundred pounds Sterling.</p><p>Can you tell I've been doing this a while?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably the Canon 1000D or the Nikon D40 for digital.That said , there are plenty of film SLRs on the used market .
If I was starting over I 'd probably get something along the lines of a Canon EOS 33V ( Elan 7N ) and a " thrifty fifty " ( Canon EF 50mm/f1.8 Mk.II ) to start with .
After that , improve the lens -- EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6/IS/USM or EF 24-105 f4 L/IS/USM.If for some reason I decided to go down the Nikon route instead... I honestly do n't know what camera body I 'd buy , but I 'd stick with a 50mm as a starter -- 50mm lenses were for many years the staple of lens manufacturers .
They 've had years to perfect the optical quality ( prime , aka fixed-focal or " fixed zoom " , lenses tend to be quite sharp anyway ) and get the price down -- an entry-level Canon or Nikon 50mm lens can be bought new for about a hundred pounds Sterling.Can you tell I 've been doing this a while ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably the Canon 1000D or the Nikon D40 for digital.That said, there are plenty of film SLRs on the used market.
If I was starting over I'd probably get something along the lines of a Canon EOS 33V (Elan 7N) and a "thrifty fifty" (Canon EF 50mm/f1.8 Mk.II) to start with.
After that, improve the lens -- EF 28-135mm f3.5-5.6/IS/USM or EF 24-105 f4 L/IS/USM.If for some reason I decided to go down the Nikon route instead... I honestly don't know what camera body I'd buy, but I'd stick with a 50mm as a starter -- 50mm lenses were for many years the staple of lens manufacturers.
They've had years to perfect the optical quality (prime, aka fixed-focal or "fixed zoom", lenses tend to be quite sharp anyway) and get the price down -- an entry-level Canon or Nikon 50mm lens can be bought new for about a hundred pounds Sterling.Can you tell I've been doing this a while?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428697</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>Carnivore</author>
	<datestamp>1245664380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This may not be of immediate help, but there was a hacked firmware for certain Canon P&amp;S cameras that allowed you to save the raw image.<br>Here's the first article I found about it:<br><a href="http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Supercharge\_Your\_Camera\_with\_Open-Source\_CHDK\_Firmware#How\_To\_Use\_It" title="wired.com">http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Supercharge\_Your\_Camera\_with\_Open-Source\_CHDK\_Firmware#How\_To\_Use\_It</a> [wired.com]</p><p>Note: I have not used this and cannot vouch for it.</p><p>Good luck!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This may not be of immediate help , but there was a hacked firmware for certain Canon P&amp;S cameras that allowed you to save the raw image.Here 's the first article I found about it : http : //howto.wired.com/wiki/Supercharge \ _Your \ _Camera \ _with \ _Open-Source \ _CHDK \ _Firmware # How \ _To \ _Use \ _It [ wired.com ] Note : I have not used this and can not vouch for it.Good luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This may not be of immediate help, but there was a hacked firmware for certain Canon P&amp;S cameras that allowed you to save the raw image.Here's the first article I found about it:http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Supercharge\_Your\_Camera\_with\_Open-Source\_CHDK\_Firmware#How\_To\_Use\_It [wired.com]Note: I have not used this and cannot vouch for it.Good luck!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433627</id>
	<title>About Time</title>
	<author>FoolishBluntman</author>
	<datestamp>1245685020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Film is dead!
Give it up people and move on.

Do you also stay up late worrying about the buggy whip manufactures that went out of business when cars started selling?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Film is dead !
Give it up people and move on .
Do you also stay up late worrying about the buggy whip manufactures that went out of business when cars started selling ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Film is dead!
Give it up people and move on.
Do you also stay up late worrying about the buggy whip manufactures that went out of business when cars started selling?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428523</id>
	<title>Just the last nail in Kodachrome coffin</title>
	<author>hwyhobo</author>
	<datestamp>1245663900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kodachrome (as other knowledgeable posters have stated already) has not been the main line for Kodak in many years. Professionals who wanted the ultimate in resolution and fine grain shot Kodachrome 25, and that was killed in 2002. Once that was gone, the rest (the 200, which was "okay", and the 64, which was "punchy") were on the downward slope. Ektachrome, which long dominated due to easier process and more natural tonal rendition is still being made (and has now been elevated to the "Pro" line). How long it will be sold is anyone's guess, but I would guess for quite a while.</p><p>While it is nice from time to time to go on a trip down memory lane and reminisce and wring one's hands, the truth is digital has far surpassed analog for most applications, and even for old farts like me the computerized postprocessing, while less romantic than darkroom filled with chemicals, is infinitely more powerful, precise, and satisfying.</p><p>What we really should regret is how hard a time Kodak has had with the transition to this brave new world, despite their early advances when it seemed they were well poised to dominate the market, just as they did in film. Something snapped, like with so many more of US companies, and early rise did not translate into a long-term
power. They certainly have excellent products and own certain niches, yet one cannot help feel that result fell short of expectations.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodachrome ( as other knowledgeable posters have stated already ) has not been the main line for Kodak in many years .
Professionals who wanted the ultimate in resolution and fine grain shot Kodachrome 25 , and that was killed in 2002 .
Once that was gone , the rest ( the 200 , which was " okay " , and the 64 , which was " punchy " ) were on the downward slope .
Ektachrome , which long dominated due to easier process and more natural tonal rendition is still being made ( and has now been elevated to the " Pro " line ) .
How long it will be sold is anyone 's guess , but I would guess for quite a while.While it is nice from time to time to go on a trip down memory lane and reminisce and wring one 's hands , the truth is digital has far surpassed analog for most applications , and even for old farts like me the computerized postprocessing , while less romantic than darkroom filled with chemicals , is infinitely more powerful , precise , and satisfying.What we really should regret is how hard a time Kodak has had with the transition to this brave new world , despite their early advances when it seemed they were well poised to dominate the market , just as they did in film .
Something snapped , like with so many more of US companies , and early rise did not translate into a long-term power .
They certainly have excellent products and own certain niches , yet one can not help feel that result fell short of expectations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodachrome (as other knowledgeable posters have stated already) has not been the main line for Kodak in many years.
Professionals who wanted the ultimate in resolution and fine grain shot Kodachrome 25, and that was killed in 2002.
Once that was gone, the rest (the 200, which was "okay", and the 64, which was "punchy") were on the downward slope.
Ektachrome, which long dominated due to easier process and more natural tonal rendition is still being made (and has now been elevated to the "Pro" line).
How long it will be sold is anyone's guess, but I would guess for quite a while.While it is nice from time to time to go on a trip down memory lane and reminisce and wring one's hands, the truth is digital has far surpassed analog for most applications, and even for old farts like me the computerized postprocessing, while less romantic than darkroom filled with chemicals, is infinitely more powerful, precise, and satisfying.What we really should regret is how hard a time Kodak has had with the transition to this brave new world, despite their early advances when it seemed they were well poised to dominate the market, just as they did in film.
Something snapped, like with so many more of US companies, and early rise did not translate into a long-term
power.
They certainly have excellent products and own certain niches, yet one cannot help feel that result fell short of expectations.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428393</id>
	<title>Re:they still make ektachrome</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1245663540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And you can <a href="http://www.grafnet.com.pl/photoshop-filters-gallery.php?kolekcja=filtry/Exposure" title="grafnet.com.pl">recreate</a> [grafnet.com.pl] them in the digital world =)</htmltext>
<tokenext>And you can recreate [ grafnet.com.pl ] them in the digital world = )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And you can recreate [grafnet.com.pl] them in the digital world =)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428537</id>
	<title>what short memories we have..</title>
	<author>spirit\_fingers</author>
	<datestamp>1245663960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Polaroid film was "phased out long ago"? They were making the stuff until June 2008 for christ's sake! I suppose next someone will say the Cleveland Indians haven't won the Series since the Late Jurassic!

Oh wait... I think that's actually true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Polaroid film was " phased out long ago " ?
They were making the stuff until June 2008 for christ 's sake !
I suppose next someone will say the Cleveland Indians have n't won the Series since the Late Jurassic !
Oh wait... I think that 's actually true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Polaroid film was "phased out long ago"?
They were making the stuff until June 2008 for christ's sake!
I suppose next someone will say the Cleveland Indians haven't won the Series since the Late Jurassic!
Oh wait... I think that's actually true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429633</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>vlm</author>
	<datestamp>1245667680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't forget dye fading, and that weird fungus/mold stuff that literally eats some negative materials.</p><p>My wife has old negatives where that weird fungus stuff started eating the negatives.  Seems stable now, at a lower humidity.</p><p>It's very educational / depressing to find a scan from the early 90s, then scan again just 15 years later, and see how much the negatives and prints have decayed.</p><p>I've been thinking of buying one of those 50 degree wine cooler fridges for my negatives... is that a good idea, if I black out the clear door?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't forget dye fading , and that weird fungus/mold stuff that literally eats some negative materials.My wife has old negatives where that weird fungus stuff started eating the negatives .
Seems stable now , at a lower humidity.It 's very educational / depressing to find a scan from the early 90s , then scan again just 15 years later , and see how much the negatives and prints have decayed.I 've been thinking of buying one of those 50 degree wine cooler fridges for my negatives... is that a good idea , if I black out the clear door ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't forget dye fading, and that weird fungus/mold stuff that literally eats some negative materials.My wife has old negatives where that weird fungus stuff started eating the negatives.
Seems stable now, at a lower humidity.It's very educational / depressing to find a scan from the early 90s, then scan again just 15 years later, and see how much the negatives and prints have decayed.I've been thinking of buying one of those 50 degree wine cooler fridges for my negatives... is that a good idea, if I black out the clear door?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427903</id>
	<title>Re:Take Kodachrome if you must ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245661740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Youll have to settle for Velvia II because they already have.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Youll have to settle for Velvia II because they already have .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Youll have to settle for Velvia II because they already have.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428095</id>
	<title>The day the Kodachrome died...</title>
	<author>NotQuiteInsane</author>
	<datestamp>1245662460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(From the article)<br>"Eastman Kodak Co said it will retire Kodachrome color film this year, ending its 74-year run after a dramatic decline in sales."</p><p>The problem with Kodachrome (when compared to E6-process slide film) is that the developing process (the "K14" process) is quite elaborate and complex -- it involves seven different chemicals, exposure to light during different stages of processing, and a ton of monitoring. There are only a few companies that still have working K14 processing machines and the chemistry and expertise necessary to run them (Dwayne's Photo Service in Kansas). From what I've heard you can still process it with black-and-white chemistry, though obviously without the colour.</p><p>As a point of comparison, E-6 is a far simpler process -- half a dozen steps in the "pure" E6 process, or three (or four, depending on manufacturer) for the "simplified" E6 kits sold by e.g. Fuji-Hunt Chemicals and Tetenal. As long as you can keep the chemical bath temperatures within spec, it's possible to do E6 (and C41, the normal colour negative process) at home. Getting the chemistry isn't easy, and the chemical heaters are getting thin on the ground (but you can always use a sink filled with warm water and a couple of mixing jugs/flasks).</p><p>For what it's worth, Fujifilm are still making Velvia. E6 process, and about the same tonal response as Kodachrome. Admittedly it isn't exactly the same, but it's close enough that for most people it really doesn't matter (and there are far more E6 labs and pro-labs than there are K14 labs)...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( From the article ) " Eastman Kodak Co said it will retire Kodachrome color film this year , ending its 74-year run after a dramatic decline in sales .
" The problem with Kodachrome ( when compared to E6-process slide film ) is that the developing process ( the " K14 " process ) is quite elaborate and complex -- it involves seven different chemicals , exposure to light during different stages of processing , and a ton of monitoring .
There are only a few companies that still have working K14 processing machines and the chemistry and expertise necessary to run them ( Dwayne 's Photo Service in Kansas ) .
From what I 've heard you can still process it with black-and-white chemistry , though obviously without the colour.As a point of comparison , E-6 is a far simpler process -- half a dozen steps in the " pure " E6 process , or three ( or four , depending on manufacturer ) for the " simplified " E6 kits sold by e.g .
Fuji-Hunt Chemicals and Tetenal .
As long as you can keep the chemical bath temperatures within spec , it 's possible to do E6 ( and C41 , the normal colour negative process ) at home .
Getting the chemistry is n't easy , and the chemical heaters are getting thin on the ground ( but you can always use a sink filled with warm water and a couple of mixing jugs/flasks ) .For what it 's worth , Fujifilm are still making Velvia .
E6 process , and about the same tonal response as Kodachrome .
Admittedly it is n't exactly the same , but it 's close enough that for most people it really does n't matter ( and there are far more E6 labs and pro-labs than there are K14 labs ) .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(From the article)"Eastman Kodak Co said it will retire Kodachrome color film this year, ending its 74-year run after a dramatic decline in sales.
"The problem with Kodachrome (when compared to E6-process slide film) is that the developing process (the "K14" process) is quite elaborate and complex -- it involves seven different chemicals, exposure to light during different stages of processing, and a ton of monitoring.
There are only a few companies that still have working K14 processing machines and the chemistry and expertise necessary to run them (Dwayne's Photo Service in Kansas).
From what I've heard you can still process it with black-and-white chemistry, though obviously without the colour.As a point of comparison, E-6 is a far simpler process -- half a dozen steps in the "pure" E6 process, or three (or four, depending on manufacturer) for the "simplified" E6 kits sold by e.g.
Fuji-Hunt Chemicals and Tetenal.
As long as you can keep the chemical bath temperatures within spec, it's possible to do E6 (and C41, the normal colour negative process) at home.
Getting the chemistry isn't easy, and the chemical heaters are getting thin on the ground (but you can always use a sink filled with warm water and a couple of mixing jugs/flasks).For what it's worth, Fujifilm are still making Velvia.
E6 process, and about the same tonal response as Kodachrome.
Admittedly it isn't exactly the same, but it's close enough that for most people it really doesn't matter (and there are far more E6 labs and pro-labs than there are K14 labs)...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28437501</id>
	<title>Find your negatives and get them scanned</title>
	<author>jocknerd</author>
	<datestamp>1245764940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am in the process of scanning a few thousand negatives that I have found at my parents house.  I am scanning them at 3000dpi and storing them in Aperture after doing some corrections on them. Any photos I find that correspond to these negatives gets tossed. The negatives then get stored in the negative sheets and put away for safekeeping.  The scanned images get backed up to Amazon S3.  My wife thinks I'm crazy but this is history. I want my children to know their grandparents and great-grandparents.</p><p>Some of the negatives I have go back to the 1940's when my mom was around 6 or 7 years old. The film quality was bad, but with the help of VueScan and Aperture, these B&amp;W's are coming out great. You can see these here: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffself/" title="flickr.com">http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffself/</a> [flickr.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am in the process of scanning a few thousand negatives that I have found at my parents house .
I am scanning them at 3000dpi and storing them in Aperture after doing some corrections on them .
Any photos I find that correspond to these negatives gets tossed .
The negatives then get stored in the negative sheets and put away for safekeeping .
The scanned images get backed up to Amazon S3 .
My wife thinks I 'm crazy but this is history .
I want my children to know their grandparents and great-grandparents.Some of the negatives I have go back to the 1940 's when my mom was around 6 or 7 years old .
The film quality was bad , but with the help of VueScan and Aperture , these B&amp;W 's are coming out great .
You can see these here : http : //www.flickr.com/photos/jeffself/ [ flickr.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am in the process of scanning a few thousand negatives that I have found at my parents house.
I am scanning them at 3000dpi and storing them in Aperture after doing some corrections on them.
Any photos I find that correspond to these negatives gets tossed.
The negatives then get stored in the negative sheets and put away for safekeeping.
The scanned images get backed up to Amazon S3.
My wife thinks I'm crazy but this is history.
I want my children to know their grandparents and great-grandparents.Some of the negatives I have go back to the 1940's when my mom was around 6 or 7 years old.
The film quality was bad, but with the help of VueScan and Aperture, these B&amp;W's are coming out great.
You can see these here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeffself/ [flickr.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430295</id>
	<title>Re:Mama Took The Kodachrome Away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245670260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>
In other news, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome\_Basin\_State\_Park" title="wikipedia.org">Kodachrome
Basin State Park</a> [wikipedia.org] is to beconcreted over to make way
for the new Sandisk Extreme IV SDHC Mall. '"The majority of today's
consumers have voiced their preference to experience the natural world
with newer technology -- both DVD and Blu-Ray", said Mary Jane
Vizigoth, president of Kodak's Film, Photofinishing And Other Stuff
We're Trying To Get Rid Of Group. "While the Basin is a truly iconic
Park that has served tourists very well for decades, the simple truth
is that people have moved on and are no longer visiting it in
sustainable volumes."<br>
<br>
Seriously, this is a terrible shame, though hardly a surprise (here in
the UK, we already have to post the exposed film to Kodak Switzerland,
who forward it to the only lab in the world that can process the film,
Dwayne's in Kansas). It's a bit like waking up one morning to hear that
oil paints are no longer available, but acrylics should be an adequate
substitute. Kodachrome is a truly unique film that works in a
completely different way to any other emulsion, and gives a distinctive
'look' that no other film (let alone digital) can reproduce.
Check out <a href="http://kodachromeproject.com/" title="kodachromeproject.com">The
Kodachrome Project</a> [kodachromeproject.com] to see why some of us will miss it so
much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other news , the Kodachrome Basin State Park [ wikipedia.org ] is to beconcreted over to make way for the new Sandisk Extreme IV SDHC Mall .
' " The majority of today 's consumers have voiced their preference to experience the natural world with newer technology -- both DVD and Blu-Ray " , said Mary Jane Vizigoth , president of Kodak 's Film , Photofinishing And Other Stuff We 're Trying To Get Rid Of Group .
" While the Basin is a truly iconic Park that has served tourists very well for decades , the simple truth is that people have moved on and are no longer visiting it in sustainable volumes .
" Seriously , this is a terrible shame , though hardly a surprise ( here in the UK , we already have to post the exposed film to Kodak Switzerland , who forward it to the only lab in the world that can process the film , Dwayne 's in Kansas ) .
It 's a bit like waking up one morning to hear that oil paints are no longer available , but acrylics should be an adequate substitute .
Kodachrome is a truly unique film that works in a completely different way to any other emulsion , and gives a distinctive 'look ' that no other film ( let alone digital ) can reproduce .
Check out The Kodachrome Project [ kodachromeproject.com ] to see why some of us will miss it so much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
In other news, the Kodachrome
Basin State Park [wikipedia.org] is to beconcreted over to make way
for the new Sandisk Extreme IV SDHC Mall.
'"The majority of today's
consumers have voiced their preference to experience the natural world
with newer technology -- both DVD and Blu-Ray", said Mary Jane
Vizigoth, president of Kodak's Film, Photofinishing And Other Stuff
We're Trying To Get Rid Of Group.
"While the Basin is a truly iconic
Park that has served tourists very well for decades, the simple truth
is that people have moved on and are no longer visiting it in
sustainable volumes.
"

Seriously, this is a terrible shame, though hardly a surprise (here in
the UK, we already have to post the exposed film to Kodak Switzerland,
who forward it to the only lab in the world that can process the film,
Dwayne's in Kansas).
It's a bit like waking up one morning to hear that
oil paints are no longer available, but acrylics should be an adequate
substitute.
Kodachrome is a truly unique film that works in a
completely different way to any other emulsion, and gives a distinctive
'look' that no other film (let alone digital) can reproduce.
Check out The
Kodachrome Project [kodachromeproject.com] to see why some of us will miss it so
much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428895</id>
	<title>Long overdue and not about digital</title>
	<author>bzzfzz</author>
	<datestamp>1245665040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most slashdot readers are probably not aware of what Kodachrome is, which is necessary to understand in order to see why Kodak is discontinuing it.</p><p>Kodachrome uses chemical technology that is essentially unchanged from the 1930s.  Instead of embedded dye in the film emulsion, as is done in all other color films in use today, the film is essentially black and white, with filter layers, and the dyes are added during processing.  Further complicating processing is a requirement for exposure to light of particular colors and intensities between chemical baths.  Because of the complicated processing and the tight coupling between the nature of the film and the details of the processing steps, there has been no change to the Kodachrome technology since the introduction of the rarely-used higher speed Kodachrome in the early 1970s.</p><p>Meanwhile, competing slide films (Velvia, metioned upthread, also Kodak's older Ektachrome and more recent Lumiere and E100VS series films) continued to improve at least through the late 1990s.  In addition to processing easy enough that it can be done in a home lab, these films are higher speed, higher resolution, less grainy, and offer more saturated colors.  Continued production of Kodachrome (or, more likely, continued release of emulsions that have been in climate controlled storage for many years) has mainly served a tiny niche of photographers who have built a personal style around the film, plus a few curious newcomers.</p><p>Aside from the aforementioned "personal photographic style" considerations, Kodachrome has been practically obsolete for around 30 years, because starting around 1975 or so the last of the serious problems with E-6 process films (Ektachrome etc) -- stability during lengthy archival storage and shadow detail -- were solved.</p><p>The presence of good alternatives in other transparency films makes this a non-event.  Should we see the day when transparency film is categorically unavailable, that will be an occasion for much greater wailing and gnashing of teeth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most slashdot readers are probably not aware of what Kodachrome is , which is necessary to understand in order to see why Kodak is discontinuing it.Kodachrome uses chemical technology that is essentially unchanged from the 1930s .
Instead of embedded dye in the film emulsion , as is done in all other color films in use today , the film is essentially black and white , with filter layers , and the dyes are added during processing .
Further complicating processing is a requirement for exposure to light of particular colors and intensities between chemical baths .
Because of the complicated processing and the tight coupling between the nature of the film and the details of the processing steps , there has been no change to the Kodachrome technology since the introduction of the rarely-used higher speed Kodachrome in the early 1970s.Meanwhile , competing slide films ( Velvia , metioned upthread , also Kodak 's older Ektachrome and more recent Lumiere and E100VS series films ) continued to improve at least through the late 1990s .
In addition to processing easy enough that it can be done in a home lab , these films are higher speed , higher resolution , less grainy , and offer more saturated colors .
Continued production of Kodachrome ( or , more likely , continued release of emulsions that have been in climate controlled storage for many years ) has mainly served a tiny niche of photographers who have built a personal style around the film , plus a few curious newcomers.Aside from the aforementioned " personal photographic style " considerations , Kodachrome has been practically obsolete for around 30 years , because starting around 1975 or so the last of the serious problems with E-6 process films ( Ektachrome etc ) -- stability during lengthy archival storage and shadow detail -- were solved.The presence of good alternatives in other transparency films makes this a non-event .
Should we see the day when transparency film is categorically unavailable , that will be an occasion for much greater wailing and gnashing of teeth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most slashdot readers are probably not aware of what Kodachrome is, which is necessary to understand in order to see why Kodak is discontinuing it.Kodachrome uses chemical technology that is essentially unchanged from the 1930s.
Instead of embedded dye in the film emulsion, as is done in all other color films in use today, the film is essentially black and white, with filter layers, and the dyes are added during processing.
Further complicating processing is a requirement for exposure to light of particular colors and intensities between chemical baths.
Because of the complicated processing and the tight coupling between the nature of the film and the details of the processing steps, there has been no change to the Kodachrome technology since the introduction of the rarely-used higher speed Kodachrome in the early 1970s.Meanwhile, competing slide films (Velvia, metioned upthread, also Kodak's older Ektachrome and more recent Lumiere and E100VS series films) continued to improve at least through the late 1990s.
In addition to processing easy enough that it can be done in a home lab, these films are higher speed, higher resolution, less grainy, and offer more saturated colors.
Continued production of Kodachrome (or, more likely, continued release of emulsions that have been in climate controlled storage for many years) has mainly served a tiny niche of photographers who have built a personal style around the film, plus a few curious newcomers.Aside from the aforementioned "personal photographic style" considerations, Kodachrome has been practically obsolete for around 30 years, because starting around 1975 or so the last of the serious problems with E-6 process films (Ektachrome etc) -- stability during lengthy archival storage and shadow detail -- were solved.The presence of good alternatives in other transparency films makes this a non-event.
Should we see the day when transparency film is categorically unavailable, that will be an occasion for much greater wailing and gnashing of teeth.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428113</id>
	<title>A challenge</title>
	<author>fishbowl</author>
	<datestamp>1245662520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using any digital process you'd like, make a slide that doesn't stand out as "fake" in a set of either Kodachrome-25 or Kodachrome-64 slides.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using any digital process you 'd like , make a slide that does n't stand out as " fake " in a set of either Kodachrome-25 or Kodachrome-64 slides .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using any digital process you'd like, make a slide that doesn't stand out as "fake" in a set of either Kodachrome-25 or Kodachrome-64 slides.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429997</id>
	<title>Re:Eastman Kodak Company...</title>
	<author>b1t r0t</author>
	<datestamp>1245669120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>RYFL.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>This business has not been accredited by BBB.
<br> <b>Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.</b></p> </div><p><div class="quote"><p>The BBB file contains a pattern of complaints from consumers who report <b>problems related to repairs of Kodak digital cameras</b>. Consumers report that their cameras broke and they were charged for repairs when the failure was not the result of any damage or abuse. Some consumers advised the Bureau that their cameras failed again after the repaired product was returned to them. Consumers also report <b>difficulty communicating with customer service</b>.</p></div><p>Lots of companies are guilty of that crap these days.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>RYFL .
This business has not been accredited by BBB .
Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation , and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation .
The BBB file contains a pattern of complaints from consumers who report problems related to repairs of Kodak digital cameras .
Consumers report that their cameras broke and they were charged for repairs when the failure was not the result of any damage or abuse .
Some consumers advised the Bureau that their cameras failed again after the repaired product was returned to them .
Consumers also report difficulty communicating with customer service.Lots of companies are guilty of that crap these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RYFL.
This business has not been accredited by BBB.
Businesses are under no obligation to seek BBB accreditation, and some businesses are not accredited because they have not sought BBB accreditation.
The BBB file contains a pattern of complaints from consumers who report problems related to repairs of Kodak digital cameras.
Consumers report that their cameras broke and they were charged for repairs when the failure was not the result of any damage or abuse.
Some consumers advised the Bureau that their cameras failed again after the repaired product was returned to them.
Consumers also report difficulty communicating with customer service.Lots of companies are guilty of that crap these days.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435969</id>
	<title>Please don't take my Kodachrome away!</title>
	<author>Newer Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1245790620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've got a Nikon camera, I love to take photographs, so please don't take my Kodachrome away!

Oh wait-that was 1972 and this is 2009...Never mind!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've got a Nikon camera , I love to take photographs , so please do n't take my Kodachrome away !
Oh wait-that was 1972 and this is 2009...Never mind !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've got a Nikon camera, I love to take photographs, so please don't take my Kodachrome away!
Oh wait-that was 1972 and this is 2009...Never mind!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428085</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>networkBoy</author>
	<datestamp>1245662460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kodachrome is the only slide film not prone to color shifting.<br>When they removed the slow K-14 films from their line I bout 2 cases and popped them in the freezer.</p><p>Guess I'll have to use them in short order lest the chemistry goes away too<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p><p>I still have 4 rolls of Konica SRG-3200 in deep freeze.  I'm saving that for a special need.<br>It's the only 3200 film ever made that can see IR through UV, and it was in color.<br>-nB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodachrome is the only slide film not prone to color shifting.When they removed the slow K-14 films from their line I bout 2 cases and popped them in the freezer.Guess I 'll have to use them in short order lest the chemistry goes away too : ( I still have 4 rolls of Konica SRG-3200 in deep freeze .
I 'm saving that for a special need.It 's the only 3200 film ever made that can see IR through UV , and it was in color.-nB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodachrome is the only slide film not prone to color shifting.When they removed the slow K-14 films from their line I bout 2 cases and popped them in the freezer.Guess I'll have to use them in short order lest the chemistry goes away too :(I still have 4 rolls of Konica SRG-3200 in deep freeze.
I'm saving that for a special need.It's the only 3200 film ever made that can see IR through UV, and it was in color.-nB</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427595</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430623</id>
	<title>Processing issues</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245671340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure this had to do with the fact that Kodachrome is process E-4, not E-6 like other slide films -- it's a custom job, even in Los Angeles I generally mailed them to Colorado to be developed. As the film market itself dwindles, the smallest niches (such as E-4 process labs) are going to dry up first. Kodak considered this TEN YEARS AGO -- I'm surprised it took them this long.</p><p>Mal-2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure this had to do with the fact that Kodachrome is process E-4 , not E-6 like other slide films -- it 's a custom job , even in Los Angeles I generally mailed them to Colorado to be developed .
As the film market itself dwindles , the smallest niches ( such as E-4 process labs ) are going to dry up first .
Kodak considered this TEN YEARS AGO -- I 'm surprised it took them this long.Mal-2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure this had to do with the fact that Kodachrome is process E-4, not E-6 like other slide films -- it's a custom job, even in Los Angeles I generally mailed them to Colorado to be developed.
As the film market itself dwindles, the smallest niches (such as E-4 process labs) are going to dry up first.
Kodak considered this TEN YEARS AGO -- I'm surprised it took them this long.Mal-2</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427955</id>
	<title>Re:they still make ektachrome</title>
	<author>readthemall</author>
	<datestamp>1245661920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And fortunately, they still make <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak\_Portra" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Portra</a> [wikipedia.org].</htmltext>
<tokenext>And fortunately , they still make Portra [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And fortunately, they still make Portra [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430547</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>Dogtanian</author>
	<datestamp>1245671160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In my experience, the real biggest 'problem' caused by digital photography is people don't tend to throw away the dreck. My parents have several thousand of photos -and they've only had a digital camera for 3 or 4 years.</p></div><p>You probably don't *need* to throw away the dreck; unless it's really obviously crap or embarrassing<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:). You simply move all the less worthwhile stuff to another folder and forget about it so you can concentrate on organising and viewing the good stuff without it getting in the way.<br> <br>
If there's anything there of interest after all in the future, you can probably fish it out with a bit of work, if not- who cares, you can store half-a-million hi-res photos on a terabyte drive.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In my experience , the real biggest 'problem ' caused by digital photography is people do n't tend to throw away the dreck .
My parents have several thousand of photos -and they 've only had a digital camera for 3 or 4 years.You probably do n't * need * to throw away the dreck ; unless it 's really obviously crap or embarrassing : ) .
You simply move all the less worthwhile stuff to another folder and forget about it so you can concentrate on organising and viewing the good stuff without it getting in the way .
If there 's anything there of interest after all in the future , you can probably fish it out with a bit of work , if not- who cares , you can store half-a-million hi-res photos on a terabyte drive .
: - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In my experience, the real biggest 'problem' caused by digital photography is people don't tend to throw away the dreck.
My parents have several thousand of photos -and they've only had a digital camera for 3 or 4 years.You probably don't *need* to throw away the dreck; unless it's really obviously crap or embarrassing :).
You simply move all the less worthwhile stuff to another folder and forget about it so you can concentrate on organising and viewing the good stuff without it getting in the way.
If there's anything there of interest after all in the future, you can probably fish it out with a bit of work, if not- who cares, you can store half-a-million hi-res photos on a terabyte drive.
:-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428365</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428727</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245664500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're scanning <i>photographs</i>?</p><p>That's the Wrong Answer. Go back to the negatives. Photographs are just the "display copy" of the source.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're scanning photographs ? That 's the Wrong Answer .
Go back to the negatives .
Photographs are just the " display copy " of the source .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're scanning photographs?That's the Wrong Answer.
Go back to the negatives.
Photographs are just the "display copy" of the source.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401</id>
	<title>Take Kodachrome if you must ...</title>
	<author>multisync</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But Mama don't take my <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvia" title="wikipedia.org">Velvia</a> [wikipedia.org] away!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But Mama do n't take my Velvia [ wikipedia.org ] away !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But Mama don't take my Velvia [wikipedia.org] away!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428365</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not send your mother and father some CD's of the digital photos you want to restore? "Offsite backup" can really be as simple as that - send some discs or USB flash drives with stuff you want preserved to family or friends who live in a different building. Put some in a safe-deposit box in a bank if you have no one to send them too (or just want additional offsite copies).</p><p>In my experience, the real biggest 'problem' caused by digital photography is people don't tend to throw away the dreck. My parents have several thousand of photos -and they've only had a digital camera for 3 or 4 years. I want to try to get them to go through them and delete stuff that isn't really their best work or very important.</p><p>I heard someone on the radio once joking that the difference between a good photographer and a bad one is that the good photographer throws away their bad photos.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not send your mother and father some CD 's of the digital photos you want to restore ?
" Offsite backup " can really be as simple as that - send some discs or USB flash drives with stuff you want preserved to family or friends who live in a different building .
Put some in a safe-deposit box in a bank if you have no one to send them too ( or just want additional offsite copies ) .In my experience , the real biggest 'problem ' caused by digital photography is people do n't tend to throw away the dreck .
My parents have several thousand of photos -and they 've only had a digital camera for 3 or 4 years .
I want to try to get them to go through them and delete stuff that is n't really their best work or very important.I heard someone on the radio once joking that the difference between a good photographer and a bad one is that the good photographer throws away their bad photos .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not send your mother and father some CD's of the digital photos you want to restore?
"Offsite backup" can really be as simple as that - send some discs or USB flash drives with stuff you want preserved to family or friends who live in a different building.
Put some in a safe-deposit box in a bank if you have no one to send them too (or just want additional offsite copies).In my experience, the real biggest 'problem' caused by digital photography is people don't tend to throw away the dreck.
My parents have several thousand of photos -and they've only had a digital camera for 3 or 4 years.
I want to try to get them to go through them and delete stuff that isn't really their best work or very important.I heard someone on the radio once joking that the difference between a good photographer and a bad one is that the good photographer throws away their bad photos.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429177</id>
	<title>Wait for the "looks softer" crowd to form...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245666120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know, how Vinyl is supposed do be higher quality because it is lower in quality but sounds softer because of that?</p><p>Just wait for the same thing happening for film. ^^</p><p>I wonder, though, if we should really completely kill film off.<br>Why not keep it for its artistic value. Think of the effects you can create in a darkroom. And it also can make more sense than to print a digital photo onto a plastic film.<br>This would be the "scratching culture" of photography, so to speak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know , how Vinyl is supposed do be higher quality because it is lower in quality but sounds softer because of that ? Just wait for the same thing happening for film .
^ ^ I wonder , though , if we should really completely kill film off.Why not keep it for its artistic value .
Think of the effects you can create in a darkroom .
And it also can make more sense than to print a digital photo onto a plastic film.This would be the " scratching culture " of photography , so to speak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know, how Vinyl is supposed do be higher quality because it is lower in quality but sounds softer because of that?Just wait for the same thing happening for film.
^^I wonder, though, if we should really completely kill film off.Why not keep it for its artistic value.
Think of the effects you can create in a darkroom.
And it also can make more sense than to print a digital photo onto a plastic film.This would be the "scratching culture" of photography, so to speak.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427415</id>
	<title>Umm....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times."</p><p>The analogue photo industry was FORCED to change with the times. They did not control the distribution of Digital Cameras and printing paper. If they had, we might never have seen the advance in CCD technology that we now have....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times .
" The analogue photo industry was FORCED to change with the times .
They did not control the distribution of Digital Cameras and printing paper .
If they had , we might never have seen the advance in CCD technology that we now have... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"At least the analog photography industry knows how to change with the times.
"The analogue photo industry was FORCED to change with the times.
They did not control the distribution of Digital Cameras and printing paper.
If they had, we might never have seen the advance in CCD technology that we now have....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429605</id>
	<title>Re:Photography students in the digital age</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245667560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The local high school passes out Canon 40Ds with a kit.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The local high school passes out Canon 40Ds with a kit .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The local high school passes out Canon 40Ds with a kit.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428545</id>
	<title>Article poster is a moron.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kodachrome was killed by Fuji's Velvia and Kodak's own Ektachrome E100-series professional films years ago. They're both much easier to process (cheaper and more environmentally friendly), as archival, and provide a variety of color palettes to choose from. K64 was around for nostalgia, and nostalgia kept people buying it and Dwayne's processing it for many years beyond what made economic sense.</p><p>Polaroid "died" within the past year, moron, not long ago, and there's a group trying to resuscitate it. Polaroid sheet film is not equalled by anything in the digi-toy world, especially type 55.</p><p>If you want to know how long Kodak will keep a product going, they discontinued their last dry plate film in 2002. That's an emulsion on a glass plate, a technology that Kodak introduced in 1879 (replacing the wet plate technology, look it up). A flexible transparent base for film was introduced in 1899, meaning they kept the "outdated" glass plate technology going for 103 years after its replacement came along.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodachrome was killed by Fuji 's Velvia and Kodak 's own Ektachrome E100-series professional films years ago .
They 're both much easier to process ( cheaper and more environmentally friendly ) , as archival , and provide a variety of color palettes to choose from .
K64 was around for nostalgia , and nostalgia kept people buying it and Dwayne 's processing it for many years beyond what made economic sense.Polaroid " died " within the past year , moron , not long ago , and there 's a group trying to resuscitate it .
Polaroid sheet film is not equalled by anything in the digi-toy world , especially type 55.If you want to know how long Kodak will keep a product going , they discontinued their last dry plate film in 2002 .
That 's an emulsion on a glass plate , a technology that Kodak introduced in 1879 ( replacing the wet plate technology , look it up ) .
A flexible transparent base for film was introduced in 1899 , meaning they kept the " outdated " glass plate technology going for 103 years after its replacement came along .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodachrome was killed by Fuji's Velvia and Kodak's own Ektachrome E100-series professional films years ago.
They're both much easier to process (cheaper and more environmentally friendly), as archival, and provide a variety of color palettes to choose from.
K64 was around for nostalgia, and nostalgia kept people buying it and Dwayne's processing it for many years beyond what made economic sense.Polaroid "died" within the past year, moron, not long ago, and there's a group trying to resuscitate it.
Polaroid sheet film is not equalled by anything in the digi-toy world, especially type 55.If you want to know how long Kodak will keep a product going, they discontinued their last dry plate film in 2002.
That's an emulsion on a glass plate, a technology that Kodak introduced in 1879 (replacing the wet plate technology, look it up).
A flexible transparent base for film was introduced in 1899, meaning they kept the "outdated" glass plate technology going for 103 years after its replacement came along.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429095</id>
	<title>Kodachrome?!</title>
	<author>rbanffy</author>
	<datestamp>1245665760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Kodachrome was once the film of choice for many baby boomers' family slide shows"</p><p>I believe the choice for slideshows was Ektachrome. Kodachrome was a color reversal film (it made negatives).</p><p>But I always preferred the ones made by Fuji. The colors looked better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Kodachrome was once the film of choice for many baby boomers ' family slide shows " I believe the choice for slideshows was Ektachrome .
Kodachrome was a color reversal film ( it made negatives ) .But I always preferred the ones made by Fuji .
The colors looked better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Kodachrome was once the film of choice for many baby boomers' family slide shows"I believe the choice for slideshows was Ektachrome.
Kodachrome was a color reversal film (it made negatives).But I always preferred the ones made by Fuji.
The colors looked better.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432103</id>
	<title>Worth noting?</title>
	<author>JshWright</author>
	<datestamp>1245677160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If nothing else, it's worth noting this was announced in the month of Sol.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_Fixed\_Calendar" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_Fixed\_Calendar</a> [wikipedia.org]</htmltext>
<tokenext>If nothing else , it 's worth noting this was announced in the month of Sol .
http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International \ _Fixed \ _Calendar [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If nothing else, it's worth noting this was announced in the month of Sol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International\_Fixed\_Calendar [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428507</id>
	<title>Re:Take Kodachrome if you must ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Keep reading down the page. The original Velvia RVP was discontinued. It was replaced with a better emulsion called Velvia RVP 50. There was a 2 year gap between them. IIRC, there was a problem with the availability of chemicals involved in the original film. Velvia RVP 50 is my favorite color film. I just shot a roll of 120 recently, but I usually shoot Ilford HP5+ B&amp;W in 4x5 or 120.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Keep reading down the page .
The original Velvia RVP was discontinued .
It was replaced with a better emulsion called Velvia RVP 50 .
There was a 2 year gap between them .
IIRC , there was a problem with the availability of chemicals involved in the original film .
Velvia RVP 50 is my favorite color film .
I just shot a roll of 120 recently , but I usually shoot Ilford HP5 + B&amp;W in 4x5 or 120 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Keep reading down the page.
The original Velvia RVP was discontinued.
It was replaced with a better emulsion called Velvia RVP 50.
There was a 2 year gap between them.
IIRC, there was a problem with the availability of chemicals involved in the original film.
Velvia RVP 50 is my favorite color film.
I just shot a roll of 120 recently, but I usually shoot Ilford HP5+ B&amp;W in 4x5 or 120.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427907</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432251</id>
	<title>Re:Where Film Still Beats Digital</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/fairvue/2162957508/sizes/l/" title="flickr.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.flickr.com/photos/fairvue/2162957508/sizes/l/</a> [flickr.com]</p><p>Can film do that at ISO 6400?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.flickr.com/photos/fairvue/2162957508/sizes/l/ [ flickr.com ] Can film do that at ISO 6400 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.flickr.com/photos/fairvue/2162957508/sizes/l/ [flickr.com]Can film do that at ISO 6400?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431055</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428325</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could get one of the Canon compact range then load up this alternative firmware: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Downloads</p><p>Let's you do things you cannot do with the standard OS/Firmware, and to boot it is perfectly safe as it only loads from your SD card into ram. Remove card and camera is back to default factory settings.</p><p>Note, for most [ultra] compacts saving in RAW format doesn't really gain you much.</p><p>Canons have good low light level response, but I like the lenses on the Panasonic compacts TZ5+ (I have one of each<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) )</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could get one of the Canon compact range then load up this alternative firmware : http : //chdk.wikia.com/wiki/DownloadsLet 's you do things you can not do with the standard OS/Firmware , and to boot it is perfectly safe as it only loads from your SD card into ram .
Remove card and camera is back to default factory settings.Note , for most [ ultra ] compacts saving in RAW format does n't really gain you much.Canons have good low light level response , but I like the lenses on the Panasonic compacts TZ5 + ( I have one of each : ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could get one of the Canon compact range then load up this alternative firmware: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/DownloadsLet's you do things you cannot do with the standard OS/Firmware, and to boot it is perfectly safe as it only loads from your SD card into ram.
Remove card and camera is back to default factory settings.Note, for most [ultra] compacts saving in RAW format doesn't really gain you much.Canons have good low light level response, but I like the lenses on the Panasonic compacts TZ5+ (I have one of each :) )</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432219</id>
	<title>Re:Kodachrome?!</title>
	<author>quisxt</author>
	<datestamp>1245677640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are confusing Kodachrome (chome == transparency in Kodak) with Kodacolor.

Kodachrome was indeed the film of choice for many baby boomer slideshows.  Before Ektachrome came along it was the only choice.  It was also used for home movies.  For instance the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination was shot in Kodachrome.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are confusing Kodachrome ( chome = = transparency in Kodak ) with Kodacolor .
Kodachrome was indeed the film of choice for many baby boomer slideshows .
Before Ektachrome came along it was the only choice .
It was also used for home movies .
For instance the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination was shot in Kodachrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are confusing Kodachrome (chome == transparency in Kodak) with Kodacolor.
Kodachrome was indeed the film of choice for many baby boomer slideshows.
Before Ektachrome came along it was the only choice.
It was also used for home movies.
For instance the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination was shot in Kodachrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428673</id>
	<title>Re:Not "analog"</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1245664320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are confused.</p><p>Film isn't a storage for light, it contains a mosaic of chemicals that is <b>analogous</b> to the light that shines on it during the brief moment of exposition.</p><p>There's <b>nothing</b> in the "analog" term that requires storage of "electromagnetic representation on magnetic tape". See also: Laserdisk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are confused.Film is n't a storage for light , it contains a mosaic of chemicals that is analogous to the light that shines on it during the brief moment of exposition.There 's nothing in the " analog " term that requires storage of " electromagnetic representation on magnetic tape " .
See also : Laserdisk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are confused.Film isn't a storage for light, it contains a mosaic of chemicals that is analogous to the light that shines on it during the brief moment of exposition.There's nothing in the "analog" term that requires storage of "electromagnetic representation on magnetic tape".
See also: Laserdisk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428357</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245663420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah. Nearly anything by Canon, and aftermarket firmware.</p><p>Check out <a href="http://chdk.wikia.com/" title="wikia.com">the CHDK wiki.</a> [wikia.com] You can download firmware which unlocks RAW mode and a whole slew of other neat features. Something that makes it particularly neat is that you don't actually put the firmware on the camera--only the memory card, and it's optionally loaded on power-up time. If it causes problems, turn the camera off and then back on but without loading the 'firmware.'</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah .
Nearly anything by Canon , and aftermarket firmware.Check out the CHDK wiki .
[ wikia.com ] You can download firmware which unlocks RAW mode and a whole slew of other neat features .
Something that makes it particularly neat is that you do n't actually put the firmware on the camera--only the memory card , and it 's optionally loaded on power-up time .
If it causes problems , turn the camera off and then back on but without loading the 'firmware .
'</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah.
Nearly anything by Canon, and aftermarket firmware.Check out the CHDK wiki.
[wikia.com] You can download firmware which unlocks RAW mode and a whole slew of other neat features.
Something that makes it particularly neat is that you don't actually put the firmware on the camera--only the memory card, and it's optionally loaded on power-up time.
If it causes problems, turn the camera off and then back on but without loading the 'firmware.
'</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427841</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Kell Bengal</author>
	<datestamp>1245661560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, you back then you could probably buy a burger and a coke for $1.50</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , you back then you could probably buy a burger and a coke for $ 1.50</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, you back then you could probably buy a burger and a coke for $1.50</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428301</id>
	<title>So KKK...</title>
	<author>jplopez</author>
	<datestamp>1245663300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... huh?</htmltext>
<tokenext>... huh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... huh?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427977</id>
	<title>Re:Take Kodachrome if you must ...</title>
	<author>interkin3tic</author>
	<datestamp>1245662040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I didn't even know Kodak made cheese!</p><p>Hey, speaking of cheesy...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I did n't even know Kodak made cheese ! Hey , speaking of cheesy.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I didn't even know Kodak made cheese!Hey, speaking of cheesy...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433043</id>
	<title>Re:Polaroid To Bring Back Polaroids</title>
	<author>k31bang</author>
	<datestamp>1245681660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.ilfordphoto.com/pressroom/article.asp?n=113" title="ilfordphoto.com" rel="nofollow">Ilford</a> [ilfordphoto.com] has attached their name to a business venture(<a href="http://www.the-impossible-project.com/" title="the-imposs...roject.com" rel="nofollow">The Impossible Project</a> [the-imposs...roject.com]) to create a new instant film.  Film is not dead; It's just resting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ilford [ ilfordphoto.com ] has attached their name to a business venture ( The Impossible Project [ the-imposs...roject.com ] ) to create a new instant film .
Film is not dead ; It 's just resting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ilford [ilfordphoto.com] has attached their name to a business venture(The Impossible Project [the-imposs...roject.com]) to create a new instant film.
Film is not dead; It's just resting.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429523</id>
	<title>WRONG! Re:Kodachrome?!</title>
	<author>Brett Buck</author>
	<datestamp>1245667320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I believe the choice for slideshows was Ektachrome. Kodachrome was a color reversal film (it made negatives).</p></div></blockquote><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; No, Kodachrome is a slide film, one of the first,  and by far the most popular until Velvia came along.  Ektachrome in the 60/70/80 s a very crappy second-rate alternative.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; I beleive you are talking about Kodacolor - the original name for the Kodak color print film.</p><p>Until about mid-90's, just about every professional color photo you ever saw was taken on Kodachrome, Nat. Geographic being a notable user. It's still superior to most of the alternatives as far as raw image quality goes. the other posters have it right - the processing was so obscure and arcane that the turn around time to get it processed has been about 2 weeks, basically forever, compared to every other slide film (Process E6, Ektachrome, Velvia, etc..) which can be done overnight, and to Kodacolor and other print film (that can be done in an hour). Slide film is still a primary medium, print film was strictly for casual point-and-shoot but has been replaced by digital almost entirely.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Brett</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe the choice for slideshows was Ektachrome .
Kodachrome was a color reversal film ( it made negatives ) .
    No , Kodachrome is a slide film , one of the first , and by far the most popular until Velvia came along .
Ektachrome in the 60/70/80 s a very crappy second-rate alternative .
      I beleive you are talking about Kodacolor - the original name for the Kodak color print film.Until about mid-90 's , just about every professional color photo you ever saw was taken on Kodachrome , Nat .
Geographic being a notable user .
It 's still superior to most of the alternatives as far as raw image quality goes .
the other posters have it right - the processing was so obscure and arcane that the turn around time to get it processed has been about 2 weeks , basically forever , compared to every other slide film ( Process E6 , Ektachrome , Velvia , etc.. ) which can be done overnight , and to Kodacolor and other print film ( that can be done in an hour ) .
Slide film is still a primary medium , print film was strictly for casual point-and-shoot but has been replaced by digital almost entirely .
      Brett</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe the choice for slideshows was Ektachrome.
Kodachrome was a color reversal film (it made negatives).
    No, Kodachrome is a slide film, one of the first,  and by far the most popular until Velvia came along.
Ektachrome in the 60/70/80 s a very crappy second-rate alternative.
      I beleive you are talking about Kodacolor - the original name for the Kodak color print film.Until about mid-90's, just about every professional color photo you ever saw was taken on Kodachrome, Nat.
Geographic being a notable user.
It's still superior to most of the alternatives as far as raw image quality goes.
the other posters have it right - the processing was so obscure and arcane that the turn around time to get it processed has been about 2 weeks, basically forever, compared to every other slide film (Process E6, Ektachrome, Velvia, etc..) which can be done overnight, and to Kodacolor and other print film (that can be done in an hour).
Slide film is still a primary medium, print film was strictly for casual point-and-shoot but has been replaced by digital almost entirely.
      Brett
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429095</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428083</id>
	<title>Re:...and everything looks worse in black and whit</title>
	<author>Reality Master 201</author>
	<datestamp>1245662400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's true, too - lovely, vivid colors.  My Kodachrome slides still look as vivid now as they did when they were first taken.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's true , too - lovely , vivid colors .
My Kodachrome slides still look as vivid now as they did when they were first taken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's true, too - lovely, vivid colors.
My Kodachrome slides still look as vivid now as they did when they were first taken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430855</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Mal-2</author>
	<datestamp>1245672300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This assumes your glass transmits that entire range, and that you like grain the size of golf balls in your prints.</p><p>I've done lots of existing light photography, and I either need to use fast glass (I have a 50 mm f/1.2 for just this purpose) or push process, even with the fastest films. Ektapress 1000 works reasonably well at 1600, if you tell the lab to push it (and they actually do). T-Max P3200 has tight grain, but a very pronounced halftoning effect (and of course it's monochrome) and it too needs to be pushed -- its natural rating is actually 1600. I've taken some spectacular stage and theater photos on T-Max P3200, and would go back to it in a heartbeat if that was the kind of shooting I needed to do.</p><p>Luckily, B/W chemistry is something you can do yourself, so it should not die any time soon.</p><p>Mal-2</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This assumes your glass transmits that entire range , and that you like grain the size of golf balls in your prints.I 've done lots of existing light photography , and I either need to use fast glass ( I have a 50 mm f/1.2 for just this purpose ) or push process , even with the fastest films .
Ektapress 1000 works reasonably well at 1600 , if you tell the lab to push it ( and they actually do ) .
T-Max P3200 has tight grain , but a very pronounced halftoning effect ( and of course it 's monochrome ) and it too needs to be pushed -- its natural rating is actually 1600 .
I 've taken some spectacular stage and theater photos on T-Max P3200 , and would go back to it in a heartbeat if that was the kind of shooting I needed to do.Luckily , B/W chemistry is something you can do yourself , so it should not die any time soon.Mal-2</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This assumes your glass transmits that entire range, and that you like grain the size of golf balls in your prints.I've done lots of existing light photography, and I either need to use fast glass (I have a 50 mm f/1.2 for just this purpose) or push process, even with the fastest films.
Ektapress 1000 works reasonably well at 1600, if you tell the lab to push it (and they actually do).
T-Max P3200 has tight grain, but a very pronounced halftoning effect (and of course it's monochrome) and it too needs to be pushed -- its natural rating is actually 1600.
I've taken some spectacular stage and theater photos on T-Max P3200, and would go back to it in a heartbeat if that was the kind of shooting I needed to do.Luckily, B/W chemistry is something you can do yourself, so it should not die any time soon.Mal-2</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428341</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt; Film stock is extremely unstable.<br><br>Apples to oranges, dude.<br><br>Film stock has always been DESIGNED to be temporary. In fact, I can't imagine that the film studios ever expected to get their prints back from the theaters in usable condition and they considered themselves lucky if they did.<br><br>In fact, film studios only recently have taken any interested at all in archiving. They are awful at it.<br><br>It is not film but digital preservation that is bad shape right now.<br><br>Yes, 80\% of the movies ever made are gone for good.<br><br>The topic of computer data preservation pops up about every six months on Slashdot and no one yet has solved the problem by any meaning definition of the term.<br><br>Without a groundbreaking change, a similar figure for digital media will be about 100\%.<br><br>--Richard</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Film stock is extremely unstable.Apples to oranges , dude.Film stock has always been DESIGNED to be temporary .
In fact , I ca n't imagine that the film studios ever expected to get their prints back from the theaters in usable condition and they considered themselves lucky if they did.In fact , film studios only recently have taken any interested at all in archiving .
They are awful at it.It is not film but digital preservation that is bad shape right now.Yes , 80 \ % of the movies ever made are gone for good.The topic of computer data preservation pops up about every six months on Slashdot and no one yet has solved the problem by any meaning definition of the term.Without a groundbreaking change , a similar figure for digital media will be about 100 \ % .--Richard</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Film stock is extremely unstable.Apples to oranges, dude.Film stock has always been DESIGNED to be temporary.
In fact, I can't imagine that the film studios ever expected to get their prints back from the theaters in usable condition and they considered themselves lucky if they did.In fact, film studios only recently have taken any interested at all in archiving.
They are awful at it.It is not film but digital preservation that is bad shape right now.Yes, 80\% of the movies ever made are gone for good.The topic of computer data preservation pops up about every six months on Slashdot and no one yet has solved the problem by any meaning definition of the term.Without a groundbreaking change, a similar figure for digital media will be about 100\%.--Richard</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427587</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But you can still get great photos with a $500 SLR. You won't get a full frame sensor in that price range, but either of the Canon or Nikon entry level dSLRs with interchangable lenses will give great photos.  And, just like an entry level SLR film camera, you can still build a nice lens collection that's ready to use with a more expensive full frame sensor camera later.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But you can still get great photos with a $ 500 SLR .
You wo n't get a full frame sensor in that price range , but either of the Canon or Nikon entry level dSLRs with interchangable lenses will give great photos .
And , just like an entry level SLR film camera , you can still build a nice lens collection that 's ready to use with a more expensive full frame sensor camera later .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But you can still get great photos with a $500 SLR.
You won't get a full frame sensor in that price range, but either of the Canon or Nikon entry level dSLRs with interchangable lenses will give great photos.
And, just like an entry level SLR film camera, you can still build a nice lens collection that's ready to use with a more expensive full frame sensor camera later.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</id>
	<title>And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I was a high-school kid trying to get into photography, a decent SLR was about $500 and if you knew enough, you could make great photos with it. Now, a full-size dSLR is at least $2k.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I was a high-school kid trying to get into photography , a decent SLR was about $ 500 and if you knew enough , you could make great photos with it .
Now , a full-size dSLR is at least $ 2k .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I was a high-school kid trying to get into photography, a decent SLR was about $500 and if you knew enough, you could make great photos with it.
Now, a full-size dSLR is at least $2k.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428543</id>
	<title>Your camera doesn't matter.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245663960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Read this and weep: <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm" title="kenrockwell.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm</a> [kenrockwell.com]</p><p>Only a poor workman blames his tools.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Read this and weep : http : //www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm [ kenrockwell.com ] Only a poor workman blames his tools .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read this and weep: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm [kenrockwell.com]Only a poor workman blames his tools.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428701</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1245664380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>AFAIK the cheapest P&amp;S with RAW from the factory are the Powershot G10 which will run you ~$450 new from a reputable dealer. Of course for much less you can get a D40 with the 18-55 kit lens (<a href="http://www.adorama.com/INKD40KR.html" title="adorama.com">$375</a> [adorama.com] at Adorama.</htmltext>
<tokenext>AFAIK the cheapest P&amp;S with RAW from the factory are the Powershot G10 which will run you ~ $ 450 new from a reputable dealer .
Of course for much less you can get a D40 with the 18-55 kit lens ( $ 375 [ adorama.com ] at Adorama .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AFAIK the cheapest P&amp;S with RAW from the factory are the Powershot G10 which will run you ~$450 new from a reputable dealer.
Of course for much less you can get a D40 with the 18-55 kit lens ($375 [adorama.com] at Adorama.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428583</id>
	<title>...and everything looks better in black and white</title>
	<author>DunderXIII</author>
	<datestamp>1245664080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well apparently Paul Simon think it's better in black in white<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcR\_LvorN\_0&amp;feature=related" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcR\_LvorN\_0&amp;feature=related</a> [youtube.com]
(2:02 mark)


<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome\_(song)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome\_(song)</a> [wikipedia.org]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
But still, Kodachrome gives us those nice bright colors
It gives us the green of summers
Make you think all the world's a sunny, oh yeah!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well apparently Paul Simon think it 's better in black in white ; - ) http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = UcR \ _LvorN \ _0&amp;feature = related [ youtube.com ] ( 2 : 02 mark ) http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome \ _ ( song ) [ wikipedia.org ] .. . But still , Kodachrome gives us those nice bright colors It gives us the green of summers Make you think all the world 's a sunny , oh yeah !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well apparently Paul Simon think it's better in black in white ;-)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcR\_LvorN\_0&amp;feature=related [youtube.com]
(2:02 mark)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodachrome\_(song) [wikipedia.org] ...
But still, Kodachrome gives us those nice bright colors
It gives us the green of summers
Make you think all the world's a sunny, oh yeah!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430265</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245670200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good luck with that. Your ISO 3200 film is extremely sensitive to cosmic rays, which will fog the film even at 0K. By the time you get around to using it, you'll be lucky to have any contrast at all.</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck with that .
Your ISO 3200 film is extremely sensitive to cosmic rays , which will fog the film even at 0K .
By the time you get around to using it , you 'll be lucky to have any contrast at all.dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck with that.
Your ISO 3200 film is extremely sensitive to cosmic rays, which will fog the film even at 0K.
By the time you get around to using it, you'll be lucky to have any contrast at all.dom</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428085</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427655</id>
	<title>Re: What?</title>
	<author>colinnwn</author>
	<datestamp>1245704100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are some very good used dSLRs in the $200 range, and some decent new ones in the $600 range. I've been wanting one and was surprised how much new ones have come down, and how well really old but well regarded dSLRs retain their value. I was hoping to get a 6mp Nikon body only for about $100. They're not that cheap yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some very good used dSLRs in the $ 200 range , and some decent new ones in the $ 600 range .
I 've been wanting one and was surprised how much new ones have come down , and how well really old but well regarded dSLRs retain their value .
I was hoping to get a 6mp Nikon body only for about $ 100 .
They 're not that cheap yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some very good used dSLRs in the $200 range, and some decent new ones in the $600 range.
I've been wanting one and was surprised how much new ones have come down, and how well really old but well regarded dSLRs retain their value.
I was hoping to get a 6mp Nikon body only for about $100.
They're not that cheap yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428671</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245664320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, that's analog. How do you back up digital for 100 years?</p><p>Also, a major part of the problem with old movies is that they used a nitrocellulose backing. Cellulose acetate is more stable. (Not perfectly stable of course, but moreso.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , that 's analog .
How do you back up digital for 100 years ? Also , a major part of the problem with old movies is that they used a nitrocellulose backing .
Cellulose acetate is more stable .
( Not perfectly stable of course , but moreso .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, that's analog.
How do you back up digital for 100 years?Also, a major part of the problem with old movies is that they used a nitrocellulose backing.
Cellulose acetate is more stable.
(Not perfectly stable of course, but moreso.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429419</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>Giffut</author>
	<datestamp>1245666900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could buy a used Fuji Finepix E900 for around US$80,-. It has great value, still. Use it with Sanyo Eneloop Rechargables and off you go for hours and hours of nonstop shooting: <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/FujiFilm/fuji\_finepixe900z.asp" title="dpreview.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/FujiFilm/fuji\_finepixe900z.asp</a> [dpreview.com].
It is a great small package and very convenient to use and carry. At the moment it anihilates our need (more lust, though) for a DSLR and videocam completely, as it is much more convenient to lugg around - to save the moments only parents<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you know what I mean<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could buy a used Fuji Finepix E900 for around US $ 80,- .
It has great value , still .
Use it with Sanyo Eneloop Rechargables and off you go for hours and hours of nonstop shooting : http : //www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/FujiFilm/fuji \ _finepixe900z.asp [ dpreview.com ] .
It is a great small package and very convenient to use and carry .
At the moment it anihilates our need ( more lust , though ) for a DSLR and videocam completely , as it is much more convenient to lugg around - to save the moments only parents ... you know what I mean .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could buy a used Fuji Finepix E900 for around US$80,-.
It has great value, still.
Use it with Sanyo Eneloop Rechargables and off you go for hours and hours of nonstop shooting: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/FujiFilm/fuji\_finepixe900z.asp [dpreview.com].
It is a great small package and very convenient to use and carry.
At the moment it anihilates our need (more lust, though) for a DSLR and videocam completely, as it is much more convenient to lugg around - to save the moments only parents ... you know what I mean ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428823</id>
	<title>There is still a little Kodachrome left.</title>
	<author>Macd275</author>
	<datestamp>1245664800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is still a little Kodachrome film out there.  I just ordered two rolls to burn on nothing but summer fun.  Kodachrome is about fun, and colors, and about wasting film on silly things.  I think the significance of this film is years of smiles and of silly pictures that mean the world the people that snapped them.  This film reminds us of memories locked in our brains, and when we see one of these pictures the brain unlocks those memories from years past.  The colors and the feeling this film captures will never be completely reproduced and could never be replaced.  Just like our memories.

My advice, buy a roll or two and go have fun with it.  Take pictures of friends and family on a trip or whatever.  You won't regret it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is still a little Kodachrome film out there .
I just ordered two rolls to burn on nothing but summer fun .
Kodachrome is about fun , and colors , and about wasting film on silly things .
I think the significance of this film is years of smiles and of silly pictures that mean the world the people that snapped them .
This film reminds us of memories locked in our brains , and when we see one of these pictures the brain unlocks those memories from years past .
The colors and the feeling this film captures will never be completely reproduced and could never be replaced .
Just like our memories .
My advice , buy a roll or two and go have fun with it .
Take pictures of friends and family on a trip or whatever .
You wo n't regret it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is still a little Kodachrome film out there.
I just ordered two rolls to burn on nothing but summer fun.
Kodachrome is about fun, and colors, and about wasting film on silly things.
I think the significance of this film is years of smiles and of silly pictures that mean the world the people that snapped them.
This film reminds us of memories locked in our brains, and when we see one of these pictures the brain unlocks those memories from years past.
The colors and the feeling this film captures will never be completely reproduced and could never be replaced.
Just like our memories.
My advice, buy a roll or two and go have fun with it.
Take pictures of friends and family on a trip or whatever.
You won't regret it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409</id>
	<title>The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>suso</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think what will be the big irony of the digital revolution is that we haven't tackled the technological problems yet like getting people to back things up and store them for long periods of time. One might think that with the advent of digital that in 100 years we'll have pictures of virtually everything from this era, but because of the problems people face, we will probably yet again have a gapping hole in time filled with lost pictures.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think what will be the big irony of the digital revolution is that we have n't tackled the technological problems yet like getting people to back things up and store them for long periods of time .
One might think that with the advent of digital that in 100 years we 'll have pictures of virtually everything from this era , but because of the problems people face , we will probably yet again have a gapping hole in time filled with lost pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think what will be the big irony of the digital revolution is that we haven't tackled the technological problems yet like getting people to back things up and store them for long periods of time.
One might think that with the advent of digital that in 100 years we'll have pictures of virtually everything from this era, but because of the problems people face, we will probably yet again have a gapping hole in time filled with lost pictures.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428635</id>
	<title>They still make film SLRs...</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1245664200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Both Canon and Nikon still make 35mm film SLRs.  Canon only makes an autofocus film body for about $900, but Nikon sells a student manual focus camera, the <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Film-Camera/1689/FM10.html" title="nikonusa.com" rel="nofollow">FM10</a> [nikonusa.com].  Amazon's selling it (through a third party vendor) for $290 with a kit zoom lens (35-70mm, f/3.5-4.8, not very good for a film student).  They even still sell a <a href="http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Camera-Lenses/Manual/Non-AF-NIKKOR-Lenses.page" title="nikonusa.com" rel="nofollow">decent selection of manual focus lenses for it</a> [nikonusa.com] (and you can still use the Nikon non-G autofocus lenses on those cameras, so the selection is even wider).

</p><p>Still, you'd be silly to buy this kind of camera new.  There's a big glut of comparable used manual focus bodies out there that will make perfectly good cameras.  I can wholly recommend Minolta SRT (which I've used), and the other systems (Olympus, Canon FD, Pentax K, etc.) are also good.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Both Canon and Nikon still make 35mm film SLRs .
Canon only makes an autofocus film body for about $ 900 , but Nikon sells a student manual focus camera , the FM10 [ nikonusa.com ] .
Amazon 's selling it ( through a third party vendor ) for $ 290 with a kit zoom lens ( 35-70mm , f/3.5-4.8 , not very good for a film student ) .
They even still sell a decent selection of manual focus lenses for it [ nikonusa.com ] ( and you can still use the Nikon non-G autofocus lenses on those cameras , so the selection is even wider ) .
Still , you 'd be silly to buy this kind of camera new .
There 's a big glut of comparable used manual focus bodies out there that will make perfectly good cameras .
I can wholly recommend Minolta SRT ( which I 've used ) , and the other systems ( Olympus , Canon FD , Pentax K , etc .
) are also good .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both Canon and Nikon still make 35mm film SLRs.
Canon only makes an autofocus film body for about $900, but Nikon sells a student manual focus camera, the FM10 [nikonusa.com].
Amazon's selling it (through a third party vendor) for $290 with a kit zoom lens (35-70mm, f/3.5-4.8, not very good for a film student).
They even still sell a decent selection of manual focus lenses for it [nikonusa.com] (and you can still use the Nikon non-G autofocus lenses on those cameras, so the selection is even wider).
Still, you'd be silly to buy this kind of camera new.
There's a big glut of comparable used manual focus bodies out there that will make perfectly good cameras.
I can wholly recommend Minolta SRT (which I've used), and the other systems (Olympus, Canon FD, Pentax K, etc.
) are also good.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428245</id>
	<title>Re:Any recommendations for a digital point-n-shoot</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1245663120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Run over to <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/" title="dpreview.com">Digital Photography Review</a> [dpreview.com] and peer around the reviews.  I think your price point is a tad low for a RAW format camera, but I could well be wrong....</htmltext>
<tokenext>Run over to Digital Photography Review [ dpreview.com ] and peer around the reviews .
I think your price point is a tad low for a RAW format camera , but I could well be wrong... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Run over to Digital Photography Review [dpreview.com] and peer around the reviews.
I think your price point is a tad low for a RAW format camera, but I could well be wrong....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495</id>
	<title>...and everything looks worse in black and white.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kodachrome<br>
They give us those nice bright colors<br>
They give us the greens of summers<br>
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah<br>
I got a Nikon camera<br>
I love to take a photograph<br>
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodachrome They give us those nice bright colors They give us the greens of summers Makes you think all the world 's a sunny day , oh yeah I got a Nikon camera I love to take a photograph So mama do n't take my Kodachrome away</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So mama don't take my Kodachrome away</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429843</id>
	<title>I'm going back to film</title>
	<author>bugs2squash</author>
	<datestamp>1245668460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>My canon point+shoot digitla is great and I still carry it, but it's rare that I take the time to get a good photo, they are mostly snapshots. I now have a cheap 6x6 TLR that shoots on roll film. There's something about the 6x6 film format, with all its impracticality, that helps me enjoy the moment of shooting the picture and enjoy the resulting photo more. Even if I still am a lousy photographer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My canon point + shoot digitla is great and I still carry it , but it 's rare that I take the time to get a good photo , they are mostly snapshots .
I now have a cheap 6x6 TLR that shoots on roll film .
There 's something about the 6x6 film format , with all its impracticality , that helps me enjoy the moment of shooting the picture and enjoy the resulting photo more .
Even if I still am a lousy photographer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My canon point+shoot digitla is great and I still carry it, but it's rare that I take the time to get a good photo, they are mostly snapshots.
I now have a cheap 6x6 TLR that shoots on roll film.
There's something about the 6x6 film format, with all its impracticality, that helps me enjoy the moment of shooting the picture and enjoy the resulting photo more.
Even if I still am a lousy photographer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430689</id>
	<title>Re:...and everything looks worse in black and whit</title>
	<author>Locke2005</author>
	<datestamp>1245671580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school<br>
It's a wonder I can think at all!</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school It 's a wonder I can think at all !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428081</id>
	<title>Re:Photography students in the digital age</title>
	<author>wk633</author>
	<datestamp>1245662400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno, but my mother is still using the K1000 she bought in '79.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno , but my mother is still using the K1000 she bought in '79 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno, but my mother is still using the K1000 she bought in '79.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432269</id>
	<title>Sad News</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245677880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sadly Kodachrome 64 was the last really archival slide file with the finest grain suitable for stereo photography. Ektachrome color fades. Fugichome has a cold garish feel. Digital might take hi-res images but there still is no real efficient compacted viewing device like a hand held viewer looking at 2 slides with a light. Successful 3-D photography is all about the crispness of details. Grain tends to take you out of the experience.</p><p>Steve</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sadly Kodachrome 64 was the last really archival slide file with the finest grain suitable for stereo photography .
Ektachrome color fades .
Fugichome has a cold garish feel .
Digital might take hi-res images but there still is no real efficient compacted viewing device like a hand held viewer looking at 2 slides with a light .
Successful 3-D photography is all about the crispness of details .
Grain tends to take you out of the experience.Steve</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sadly Kodachrome 64 was the last really archival slide file with the finest grain suitable for stereo photography.
Ektachrome color fades.
Fugichome has a cold garish feel.
Digital might take hi-res images but there still is no real efficient compacted viewing device like a hand held viewer looking at 2 slides with a light.
Successful 3-D photography is all about the crispness of details.
Grain tends to take you out of the experience.Steve</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432297</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>bfrpsw</author>
	<datestamp>1245678000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Film stock is extremely unstable.</p> </div><p>You're referring to the old nitrate-based filmstock that was used in until the early 1950s: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film\_base" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film\_base</a> [wikipedia.org] . It was and is susceptible to auto-ignition</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Film stock is extremely unstable .
You 're referring to the old nitrate-based filmstock that was used in until the early 1950s : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film \ _base [ wikipedia.org ] .
It was and is susceptible to auto-ignition</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Film stock is extremely unstable.
You're referring to the old nitrate-based filmstock that was used in until the early 1950s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film\_base [wikipedia.org] .
It was and is susceptible to auto-ignition
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431055</id>
	<title>Where Film Still Beats Digital</title>
	<author>reallocate</author>
	<datestamp>1245672960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Film still beats digital in low-light, high-ISO situations.  If you just snap pix with your phone, you won't care.  If you make a living with your camers, you will.</p><p>Yes, the very best digital cameras are very good, but their film equivalents are significantly cheaper.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Film still beats digital in low-light , high-ISO situations .
If you just snap pix with your phone , you wo n't care .
If you make a living with your camers , you will.Yes , the very best digital cameras are very good , but their film equivalents are significantly cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Film still beats digital in low-light, high-ISO situations.
If you just snap pix with your phone, you won't care.
If you make a living with your camers, you will.Yes, the very best digital cameras are very good, but their film equivalents are significantly cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28444213</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>dgatwood</author>
	<datestamp>1245747720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I assume they give you the negatives with that CD, since you get them for free as part of the developing process.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I assume they give you the negatives with that CD , since you get them for free as part of the developing process .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I assume they give you the negatives with that CD, since you get them for free as part of the developing process.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435849</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557</id>
	<title>they still make ektachrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>in all of its dreary blue fuzziness.
<p>
Kodachrome was like smoking pot.
</p><p>
Fuji is like doing acid.
</p><p>
Agfa is like a rainy day...
</p><p>
RS</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>in all of its dreary blue fuzziness .
Kodachrome was like smoking pot .
Fuji is like doing acid .
Agfa is like a rainy day.. . RS</tokentext>
<sentencetext>in all of its dreary blue fuzziness.
Kodachrome was like smoking pot.
Fuji is like doing acid.
Agfa is like a rainy day...

RS</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428011</id>
	<title>Caretakers of artistic medium</title>
	<author>cockpitcomp</author>
	<datestamp>1245662160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I hope Kodak and Fuji take care of their core film lines, even if it is no longer a significant profit center. I know they are a business, maybe they can keep some film production going as a charitable contribution when no longer profitable on it's own.

I am not an photographer myself but do appreciate their work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope Kodak and Fuji take care of their core film lines , even if it is no longer a significant profit center .
I know they are a business , maybe they can keep some film production going as a charitable contribution when no longer profitable on it 's own .
I am not an photographer myself but do appreciate their work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope Kodak and Fuji take care of their core film lines, even if it is no longer a significant profit center.
I know they are a business, maybe they can keep some film production going as a charitable contribution when no longer profitable on it's own.
I am not an photographer myself but do appreciate their work.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433211</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1245682440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're scanning photographs?</p></div><p>Photographs, slides, and negatives, yes...</p><p>I'm concentrating first on the color prints because the others are still holding up rather well. Many of the negatives that I've found are not very usable if they exist at all. They are scattered haphazard at the bottom of big boxes full of reject photos rather than carefully placed into albums. The best preserved are the slides which my father had lovingly sorted and placed into cassettes for viewing in a projector. They are even labeled and whatnot... very handy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Even handier is that he bought a scanner and is now getting in on the action...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're scanning photographs ? Photographs , slides , and negatives , yes...I 'm concentrating first on the color prints because the others are still holding up rather well .
Many of the negatives that I 've found are not very usable if they exist at all .
They are scattered haphazard at the bottom of big boxes full of reject photos rather than carefully placed into albums .
The best preserved are the slides which my father had lovingly sorted and placed into cassettes for viewing in a projector .
They are even labeled and whatnot... very handy : ) Even handier is that he bought a scanner and is now getting in on the action.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're scanning photographs?Photographs, slides, and negatives, yes...I'm concentrating first on the color prints because the others are still holding up rather well.
Many of the negatives that I've found are not very usable if they exist at all.
They are scattered haphazard at the bottom of big boxes full of reject photos rather than carefully placed into albums.
The best preserved are the slides which my father had lovingly sorted and placed into cassettes for viewing in a projector.
They are even labeled and whatnot... very handy :) Even handier is that he bought a scanner and is now getting in on the action...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435087</id>
	<title>Re:Photography students in the digital age</title>
	<author>Landshark17</author>
	<datestamp>1245695280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I used my dad's Minolta SRT 102 with a 50mm lens.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I used my dad 's Minolta SRT 102 with a 50mm lens .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I used my dad's Minolta SRT 102 with a 50mm lens.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429969</id>
	<title>Re:...and everything looks worse in black and whit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245669060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BTW, in the Central Park concerts, Simon sang "everything looks BETTER in black and white."</p><p>I think B&amp;W film will be the last to die, and hopefully it won't be in our lifetime. There is still a lot of film gear out there that works great. My Ricoh 35mm SLR worked perfectly the second I pulled it out of the box it was in for 15 years. Try that with digital. It's fully mechanical, except for the light meter, which is juiced by a solar-powered capacitor.</p><p>Black and white film is much simpler to make and quite easy and inexpensive to develop at home. The only special chemicals you need are developer and fixer, and you can do it at room temperature. It costs maybe $1 a roll for the chems, and all the initial equipment totalled maybe $30.</p><p>Working with B&amp;W film also contains plenty of the nostalgia of the dying film era. Nearly all of the pullitzer-prize-winning photos of the 60's and 70's were shot on Tri-X (the film mentioned in the OP "department" line).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BTW , in the Central Park concerts , Simon sang " everything looks BETTER in black and white .
" I think B&amp;W film will be the last to die , and hopefully it wo n't be in our lifetime .
There is still a lot of film gear out there that works great .
My Ricoh 35mm SLR worked perfectly the second I pulled it out of the box it was in for 15 years .
Try that with digital .
It 's fully mechanical , except for the light meter , which is juiced by a solar-powered capacitor.Black and white film is much simpler to make and quite easy and inexpensive to develop at home .
The only special chemicals you need are developer and fixer , and you can do it at room temperature .
It costs maybe $ 1 a roll for the chems , and all the initial equipment totalled maybe $ 30.Working with B&amp;W film also contains plenty of the nostalgia of the dying film era .
Nearly all of the pullitzer-prize-winning photos of the 60 's and 70 's were shot on Tri-X ( the film mentioned in the OP " department " line ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BTW, in the Central Park concerts, Simon sang "everything looks BETTER in black and white.
"I think B&amp;W film will be the last to die, and hopefully it won't be in our lifetime.
There is still a lot of film gear out there that works great.
My Ricoh 35mm SLR worked perfectly the second I pulled it out of the box it was in for 15 years.
Try that with digital.
It's fully mechanical, except for the light meter, which is juiced by a solar-powered capacitor.Black and white film is much simpler to make and quite easy and inexpensive to develop at home.
The only special chemicals you need are developer and fixer, and you can do it at room temperature.
It costs maybe $1 a roll for the chems, and all the initial equipment totalled maybe $30.Working with B&amp;W film also contains plenty of the nostalgia of the dying film era.
Nearly all of the pullitzer-prize-winning photos of the 60's and 70's were shot on Tri-X (the film mentioned in the OP "department" line).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427391</id>
	<title>Mama Took The Kodachrome Away</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujhdf9\_IO4w" title="youtube.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujhdf9\_IO4w</a> [youtube.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.youtube.com/watch ? v = ujhdf9 \ _IO4w [ youtube.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujhdf9\_IO4w [youtube.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428819</id>
	<title>Re:And it is good because?</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1245664800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I was in high school beer was 50p a pint.  Now it's two quid.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I was in high school beer was 50p a pint .
Now it 's two quid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I was in high school beer was 50p a pint.
Now it's two quid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430909</id>
	<title>Re:they still make ektachrome</title>
	<author>tverbeek</author>
	<datestamp>1245672480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Bah!  Ektachrome is a cheap substitute for Kodachrome.  Literally.  It was introduced as a cheaper film that was easier to develop, and which allowed fast shutter speeds in low light.  Kodachrome, on the other hand, has always been for people who wanted the best quality possible, and wanted the images to last.  Affordable digital sensors are still not equal to Kodachrome in dynamic range or in detail.  A Kodachrome slide kept in optimal conditions will last nearly 200 years with only slight color degradation. By contrast, you will have to backup your backups and then get your grandchildren to backup those backups for <i>their</i> grandchildren to backup, for them to be able to view those digital images at all.   Yeah, I understand that the market has abandoned Kodachrome and why.  But the market is a damn fool.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Bah !
Ektachrome is a cheap substitute for Kodachrome .
Literally. It was introduced as a cheaper film that was easier to develop , and which allowed fast shutter speeds in low light .
Kodachrome , on the other hand , has always been for people who wanted the best quality possible , and wanted the images to last .
Affordable digital sensors are still not equal to Kodachrome in dynamic range or in detail .
A Kodachrome slide kept in optimal conditions will last nearly 200 years with only slight color degradation .
By contrast , you will have to backup your backups and then get your grandchildren to backup those backups for their grandchildren to backup , for them to be able to view those digital images at all .
Yeah , I understand that the market has abandoned Kodachrome and why .
But the market is a damn fool .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bah!
Ektachrome is a cheap substitute for Kodachrome.
Literally.  It was introduced as a cheaper film that was easier to develop, and which allowed fast shutter speeds in low light.
Kodachrome, on the other hand, has always been for people who wanted the best quality possible, and wanted the images to last.
Affordable digital sensors are still not equal to Kodachrome in dynamic range or in detail.
A Kodachrome slide kept in optimal conditions will last nearly 200 years with only slight color degradation.
By contrast, you will have to backup your backups and then get your grandchildren to backup those backups for their grandchildren to backup, for them to be able to view those digital images at all.
Yeah, I understand that the market has abandoned Kodachrome and why.
But the market is a damn fool.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428809</id>
	<title>One of the most ignorant postings I've seen yet</title>
	<author>jmcbain</author>
	<datestamp>1245664740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This has to be one of the most ignorant postings I've seen on Slashdot, ever. Good job, eldavojohn.

1. Kodachrome being discontinue is not related to "the death of film." Kodachrome was long supplanted by Fujichrome Velvia as the professional colour-positive film back in the 1990s.

2. Polaroid was not phased out "a long time ago." The company only announced it was getting ending production in February 2008.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This has to be one of the most ignorant postings I 've seen on Slashdot , ever .
Good job , eldavojohn .
1. Kodachrome being discontinue is not related to " the death of film .
" Kodachrome was long supplanted by Fujichrome Velvia as the professional colour-positive film back in the 1990s .
2. Polaroid was not phased out " a long time ago .
" The company only announced it was getting ending production in February 2008 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has to be one of the most ignorant postings I've seen on Slashdot, ever.
Good job, eldavojohn.
1. Kodachrome being discontinue is not related to "the death of film.
" Kodachrome was long supplanted by Fujichrome Velvia as the professional colour-positive film back in the 1990s.
2. Polaroid was not phased out "a long time ago.
" The company only announced it was getting ending production in February 2008.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430561</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>Darinbob</author>
	<datestamp>1245671220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can look at a range of photos of relatives and ancestors today, ranging from Daguerreotypes to Polaroids to 35mm slides to pictures from disposable cameras.  They're all viewable.  The colors may not be great, and the Daguerreotypes may have some damage, but the information is there.<br><br>Now lets say I had my parents wedding pictures on a 9-track tape, stored in an Amiga IFF format.  It would be very expensive and time consuming for me to get even a degraded picture off of that.  If I was less tech savvy I wouldn't even bother trying.  It would be a major challenge even to get print outs from a Kodak Photo CD for most people I think, and that's not that old.<br><br>"Digital" may create perfect copies, but the data is only as permanent as the knowledge of how to decode the data and the technology necessary to extract and transform the data.  If the standards and technology move on, the older stuff will get left behind and become harder and harder to deal with as time passes.  The data may not be lost, but it may require a massive effort to recover it. The person with foresight will remember to completely copy and convert all their data to newer media formats every 5 to 10 years, but most people will not.<br><br>Even today there are repositories of scientific digital data becoming obsolete, in old format, old media, etc.  If you're a big site, like Nasa or a university, you can spend money to convert that data from thirty year old missions and experiments into newer formats.  If you're a home user with an eight inch floppy disk then you're stuck.  Meanwhile I can open up a photo album today and look at some faded 50 year old pictures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can look at a range of photos of relatives and ancestors today , ranging from Daguerreotypes to Polaroids to 35mm slides to pictures from disposable cameras .
They 're all viewable .
The colors may not be great , and the Daguerreotypes may have some damage , but the information is there.Now lets say I had my parents wedding pictures on a 9-track tape , stored in an Amiga IFF format .
It would be very expensive and time consuming for me to get even a degraded picture off of that .
If I was less tech savvy I would n't even bother trying .
It would be a major challenge even to get print outs from a Kodak Photo CD for most people I think , and that 's not that old .
" Digital " may create perfect copies , but the data is only as permanent as the knowledge of how to decode the data and the technology necessary to extract and transform the data .
If the standards and technology move on , the older stuff will get left behind and become harder and harder to deal with as time passes .
The data may not be lost , but it may require a massive effort to recover it .
The person with foresight will remember to completely copy and convert all their data to newer media formats every 5 to 10 years , but most people will not.Even today there are repositories of scientific digital data becoming obsolete , in old format , old media , etc .
If you 're a big site , like Nasa or a university , you can spend money to convert that data from thirty year old missions and experiments into newer formats .
If you 're a home user with an eight inch floppy disk then you 're stuck .
Meanwhile I can open up a photo album today and look at some faded 50 year old pictures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can look at a range of photos of relatives and ancestors today, ranging from Daguerreotypes to Polaroids to 35mm slides to pictures from disposable cameras.
They're all viewable.
The colors may not be great, and the Daguerreotypes may have some damage, but the information is there.Now lets say I had my parents wedding pictures on a 9-track tape, stored in an Amiga IFF format.
It would be very expensive and time consuming for me to get even a degraded picture off of that.
If I was less tech savvy I wouldn't even bother trying.
It would be a major challenge even to get print outs from a Kodak Photo CD for most people I think, and that's not that old.
"Digital" may create perfect copies, but the data is only as permanent as the knowledge of how to decode the data and the technology necessary to extract and transform the data.
If the standards and technology move on, the older stuff will get left behind and become harder and harder to deal with as time passes.
The data may not be lost, but it may require a massive effort to recover it.
The person with foresight will remember to completely copy and convert all their data to newer media formats every 5 to 10 years, but most people will not.Even today there are repositories of scientific digital data becoming obsolete, in old format, old media, etc.
If you're a big site, like Nasa or a university, you can spend money to convert that data from thirty year old missions and experiments into newer formats.
If you're a home user with an eight inch floppy disk then you're stuck.
Meanwhile I can open up a photo album today and look at some faded 50 year old pictures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851</id>
	<title>Re:The ultimate irony</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1245661620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>getting people to back things up and store them for long periods of time</p></div><p>I've been scanning my family's color photographs preferentially over the older black and whites because many of them which are not even 30 years old have begun to fade into nothing.</p><p>Photographs are also not safe from fire or dampness.</p><p>So I don't think the situation has changed all that much. Most photos are junk, and the good ones tend to get distributed, printed, and thus inherently backed up. I know if I somehow lost my main drive, backup drive, and Mozy data I could recover most of my best pictures simply by asking my mother and father for what they can find.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>getting people to back things up and store them for long periods of timeI 've been scanning my family 's color photographs preferentially over the older black and whites because many of them which are not even 30 years old have begun to fade into nothing.Photographs are also not safe from fire or dampness.So I do n't think the situation has changed all that much .
Most photos are junk , and the good ones tend to get distributed , printed , and thus inherently backed up .
I know if I somehow lost my main drive , backup drive , and Mozy data I could recover most of my best pictures simply by asking my mother and father for what they can find .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>getting people to back things up and store them for long periods of timeI've been scanning my family's color photographs preferentially over the older black and whites because many of them which are not even 30 years old have begun to fade into nothing.Photographs are also not safe from fire or dampness.So I don't think the situation has changed all that much.
Most photos are junk, and the good ones tend to get distributed, printed, and thus inherently backed up.
I know if I somehow lost my main drive, backup drive, and Mozy data I could recover most of my best pictures simply by asking my mother and father for what they can find.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428979</id>
	<title>Re:Not "analog"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245665400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Analog vs digital has nothing to do with the storage medium or whether light or electromagnetism is used. Analog is continuous, like a sine wave. Digital is discrete, like a step wave. "Optical" is not a third choice. A CD is digital, but a laser disc is analog, but both are optical. Technically though, everything is digital according to quantum theory.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Analog vs digital has nothing to do with the storage medium or whether light or electromagnetism is used .
Analog is continuous , like a sine wave .
Digital is discrete , like a step wave .
" Optical " is not a third choice .
A CD is digital , but a laser disc is analog , but both are optical .
Technically though , everything is digital according to quantum theory .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Analog vs digital has nothing to do with the storage medium or whether light or electromagnetism is used.
Analog is continuous, like a sine wave.
Digital is discrete, like a step wave.
"Optical" is not a third choice.
A CD is digital, but a laser disc is analog, but both are optical.
Technically though, everything is digital according to quantum theory.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428235</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427519</id>
	<title>Mama don't take my Kodachrome away!</title>
	<author>edwardd</author>
	<datestamp>1245703740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Paul Simon is probably mourning with the rest of us, as we wonder where we left our film cameras....</p><p>My dad got me into photography, I used to develop my own film with him when I was a kid (but that was black &amp; white). Kodak may be ending Kodachrome, but there's still plenty of applications where digital still doesn't fit the bill. They're dwindling, but there is still a need for film.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Paul Simon is probably mourning with the rest of us , as we wonder where we left our film cameras....My dad got me into photography , I used to develop my own film with him when I was a kid ( but that was black &amp; white ) .
Kodak may be ending Kodachrome , but there 's still plenty of applications where digital still does n't fit the bill .
They 're dwindling , but there is still a need for film .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Paul Simon is probably mourning with the rest of us, as we wonder where we left our film cameras....My dad got me into photography, I used to develop my own film with him when I was a kid (but that was black &amp; white).
Kodak may be ending Kodachrome, but there's still plenty of applications where digital still doesn't fit the bill.
They're dwindling, but there is still a need for film.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428745</id>
	<title>One thing that is lost is longevity</title>
	<author>chmims</author>
	<datestamp>1245664620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is nothing just like Kodachrome.  It has virtually no grain and last almost forever.  Certainly longer than Ektachrome.<br>For anyone who worked with film it is a sad day.</p><p>By the way if you want archival quality photos by far the best is black and white film developed and printed.  If it is properly<br>washed and stored, short of burning, it will last forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is nothing just like Kodachrome .
It has virtually no grain and last almost forever .
Certainly longer than Ektachrome.For anyone who worked with film it is a sad day.By the way if you want archival quality photos by far the best is black and white film developed and printed .
If it is properlywashed and stored , short of burning , it will last forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is nothing just like Kodachrome.
It has virtually no grain and last almost forever.
Certainly longer than Ektachrome.For anyone who worked with film it is a sad day.By the way if you want archival quality photos by far the best is black and white film developed and printed.
If it is properlywashed and stored, short of burning, it will last forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427433</id>
	<title>In the immortal words of Paul Simon...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245703500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When I think back<br>On all the crap I learned in high school<br>Its a wonder<br>I can think at all<br>And though my lack of education<br>Hasn't hurt me none<br>I can read the writing on the wall</p><p>Kodachrome<br>They give us those nice bright colors<br>They give us the greens of summers<br>Makes you think all the worlds a sunny day, oh yeah<br>I got a Nikon camera<br>I love to take a photograph<br>So mama don't take my Kodachrome away</p><p>If you took all the girls I knew<br>When I was single<br>And brought them all together for one night<br>I know they'd never match<br>My sweet imagination<br>And everything looks worse in black and white</p><p>Kodachrome<br>They give us those nice bright colors<br>They give us the greens of summers<br>Makes you think all the worlds a sunny day, oh yeah<br>I got a Nikon camera<br>I love to take a photograph<br>So mama don't take my Kodachrome away</p><p>languages +<br>EnglishEspa&#241;olFran&#231;aisItalianoNederlands<br>genres +<br>PopRockEasy Listening<br>links +<br>Lyrics Colors Movies</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When I think backOn all the crap I learned in high schoolIts a wonderI can think at allAnd though my lack of educationHas n't hurt me noneI can read the writing on the wallKodachromeThey give us those nice bright colorsThey give us the greens of summersMakes you think all the worlds a sunny day , oh yeahI got a Nikon cameraI love to take a photographSo mama do n't take my Kodachrome awayIf you took all the girls I knewWhen I was singleAnd brought them all together for one nightI know they 'd never matchMy sweet imaginationAnd everything looks worse in black and whiteKodachromeThey give us those nice bright colorsThey give us the greens of summersMakes you think all the worlds a sunny day , oh yeahI got a Nikon cameraI love to take a photographSo mama do n't take my Kodachrome awaylanguages + EnglishEspa   olFran   aisItalianoNederlandsgenres + PopRockEasy Listeninglinks + Lyrics Colors Movies</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I think backOn all the crap I learned in high schoolIts a wonderI can think at allAnd though my lack of educationHasn't hurt me noneI can read the writing on the wallKodachromeThey give us those nice bright colorsThey give us the greens of summersMakes you think all the worlds a sunny day, oh yeahI got a Nikon cameraI love to take a photographSo mama don't take my Kodachrome awayIf you took all the girls I knewWhen I was singleAnd brought them all together for one nightI know they'd never matchMy sweet imaginationAnd everything looks worse in black and whiteKodachromeThey give us those nice bright colorsThey give us the greens of summersMakes you think all the worlds a sunny day, oh yeahI got a Nikon cameraI love to take a photographSo mama don't take my Kodachrome awaylanguages +EnglishEspañolFrançaisItalianoNederlandsgenres +PopRockEasy Listeninglinks +Lyrics Colors Movies</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28438287</id>
	<title>My take on that song</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245769320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking about that song recently, and my take is that he wasn't singing about the film.  He was singing about the film -cannister-.  You see, back in the day, the most common storage container for pot was a 35mm film cannister.  He didn't give a shit about momma taking away his -film-, it was what he kept -in- the Kodachrome cannister that gave the "nice bright colors"....</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking about that song recently , and my take is that he was n't singing about the film .
He was singing about the film -cannister- .
You see , back in the day , the most common storage container for pot was a 35mm film cannister .
He did n't give a shit about momma taking away his -film- , it was what he kept -in- the Kodachrome cannister that gave the " nice bright colors " ... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking about that song recently, and my take is that he wasn't singing about the film.
He was singing about the film -cannister-.
You see, back in the day, the most common storage container for pot was a 35mm film cannister.
He didn't give a shit about momma taking away his -film-, it was what he kept -in- the Kodachrome cannister that gave the "nice bright colors"....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429135</id>
	<title>Kodak...</title>
	<author>SebaSOFT</author>
	<datestamp>1245665940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Kodak bustes it's own @$$ long ago with the invention of the digital photo, it's business model didn't change as fast as the industry and that's why they have to close portions of their products, out of the bankrupcy.<br>Make no mistake, this is no "we are changing with the times", this is "we ran out of business and we are shrinking".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Kodak bustes it 's own @ $ $ long ago with the invention of the digital photo , it 's business model did n't change as fast as the industry and that 's why they have to close portions of their products , out of the bankrupcy.Make no mistake , this is no " we are changing with the times " , this is " we ran out of business and we are shrinking " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Kodak bustes it's own @$$ long ago with the invention of the digital photo, it's business model didn't change as fast as the industry and that's why they have to close portions of their products, out of the bankrupcy.Make no mistake, this is no "we are changing with the times", this is "we ran out of business and we are shrinking".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28438287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428673
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429307
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429633
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432251
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427797
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429337
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433823
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428073
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428819
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428543
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28434865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427587
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430881
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427955
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428583
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427907
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427763
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430561
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428783
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428083
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433043
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428671
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429969
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431659
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428697
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431055
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28436127
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429095
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429943
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435849
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28444213
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427595
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428085
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430547
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428365
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433513
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428235
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428979
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430295
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428371
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_22_1921210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429177
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435069
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433043
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428445
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428325
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428371
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428783
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428697
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430881
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428357
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427413
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430129
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428543
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28434865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427797
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428819
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427763
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427739
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428263
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429605
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428081
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428213
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428635
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428085
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428265
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427655
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427841
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428235
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428979
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428673
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429307
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431055
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432251
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28436127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427495
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428083
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429969
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28438287
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427625
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429997
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433823
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427409
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427773
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428671
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428341
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432297
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429633
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430561
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427851
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428365
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430547
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433513
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431523
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428727
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28433211
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429943
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28435849
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28444213
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428895
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430623
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427401
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427971
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427907
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428507
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427903
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428523
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428113
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429095
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28429523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28432219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430295
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428393
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427955
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28430909
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28431659
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28427519
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_22_1921210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_22_1921210.28428127
</commentlist>
</conversation>
