Jim,
I agree in concept with what you say, but that casual (non-hobbist)
wants one other thing also which will keep film around a long time. He
wants very high quality (relative) in addition to your three simple,
fast, and cheap. And he can get it with film !
Rand E.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Couch wrote:
>
> Good points John. The truth is digital has a LONG way to go before it knocks
> film out on the consumer level. The casual (non-hobbyist) wants three things
> simple, cheap & fast. Amazingly enough, digital offers none of this to the
> average consumer. Consumer film cameras are amazingly cheap (one use cams cost
> little more than film many places) cheap film abounds, the cameras do not suck
> down batteries, and one hour printing is everywhere. None of this requires any
> kind of computer knowledge or skill. Digital cameras are still relatively
> expensive, have relatively complex controls, require a computer and a modicum
> of skill to get prints, require you to spend time making the prints. A lot of
> roadblocks for the casual user.
>
> In comparison CDs were easier to use, (no cleaning, no need to turn it over,
> not likely to scratch), offered longer play times, and were marketed as better
> quality. Now while most of these improvements were largely marketing hype,
> they
> nonetheless were targeted at the casual use, helping the big boys ram em down
> our throats. The digital boys have a lot of work to do to kill off film.
>
> John O'Regan wrote:
>
> > This current thread reminds me of the CD versus Vinyl debate in the mid
> > 1980s. You can still buy new vinyl albums if you really try, but it is
> > very much a diehard specialist field now. In the end, CDs won, despite
> > inferior sound quality, because that's what the big boys wanted;-)
> >
> > I don't know much about digital photography, but does the 'mass market'
> > really download their pics to a pc or mac and then manipulate and print?
> > Surely that's more of a hobbyist activity? Or do they take the 'memory' to
> > a processor or what? I've scanned one or two prints into my PC and printed
> > them but I have been very disappointed with the results. There seems to be
> > some cross-calibration required between scanner/screen/printer and I would
> > have thought that similar would be required between a digicamera and
> > printer. Yes? No? Is this really a mass market activity?
> >
> > BTW beautiful eclipse last night, clear sky, orange-red moon - tried a few
> > shots with the OM4Ti and Tamron SP 500 f8 mirror on Fuji slide film,
> > exposures of 5/10/15/20/25/60 secs. have to wait now to finish the roll.
> >
> > JOhnO
> >
> > < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> > < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> > < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|