For this person anyway, the security hassle was one more nail in the
coffin of film. Not enough in itself, but enough to experiment with a
digital camera for air travel. Hard to go back then.
I think many of us spend more time in front of Photoshop screens that
we ever spent in a darkroom.
Winsor
Long Beach, CA
USA
On Jul 22, 2004, at 5:02 PM, Michael Darling wrote:
> On 7/22/04 6:59 PM, "Doug" <dhsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I've often wondered if the decline of film has been accelerated as a
>> result of
>> 9/11 and the increased security hassles that go with it. If someone
>> thinks
>> their pictures are a risk from xray or whatever, that may be just
>> enough
>> reason to move to digital, where they might have waited 5 years
>> otherwise.
>
> Doubtful. Average camera carrying travelers are either ignorant to the
> so-called "dangers" of luggage scanners (until they read the signs),
> or are
> like us and overly paranoid about them already. Seems to be my
> experience,
> anyway.
>
> Digital just appeals to people on so many levels that film never
> could. All
> us geeks love waiting for film to come back from the lab, or watching a
> print come to life in the darkroom. The digital hordes may never
> experience
> that, but when I think about all my time wasted alone in a dark room
> watching seconds click away from my life, I constantly question why I
> keep
> going back.
>
> -mike
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|