There is a significant difference between film and digital.
With film cameras, you *need* film (in order to take any pictures) - with
digital, all you need (externally) is some form of 'storage'.
And the JPEG format cannot now be 'un-invented' - at worst it may become
fully propriety and require appropriate licences to legally use (but there
are Open Source 'public domain' formats that you could convert your images
to).
And I can't see USB vanishing completely - even if you have to buy a card
with 'retro' interfaces fitted one day!
Allan
PS No trees were harmed in the sending of this message and a very large
number of electrons were asked their permission to be terribly
inconvenienced. (And threw a party for them afterwards for being really cool
about it).
Disrupting the unnatural balance that you, as a conscious human being and a
confused mass of energy, have created.
-Disturb the mind -
>From: "Christos Stavrou" <christos.stavrou@xxxxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [OM] The new digital discourse [was: Looking back and forward]
>Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 01:29:13 +0000
>
>
>On 26/12/06, Steve Dropkin <steve@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > In the "old" days, the product was as much about engineering and
> > quality as it was features. Nowadays it seems that marketing and
> > economy trump both of those, and items are made obsolete just
> > because their continued use threatens corporate income streams.
> >
> > That's my (admittedly pessimistic) view of it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Steve
>
>At last, someone places the issue in its appropriate and specific context!
>
>These days, when digital cameras come to conversation, everyone talks
>about one thousands things apart the most fundamental:
>
>The new (digital) products relate to economic factors
>(production/consumption) and the needs of the industry within a
>capitalist system.. Of course It's the capitalist pursuit of profit,
>as well as rationalizations and whatever 'fine' beliefs from the
>consuming masses (well, we have left the Fordist era, haven't we?),
>that have rapidly established digital products over what is labelled
>as 'previous' or 'surpassed' technologies..
>
>All that, to such extent, that it's rather clear what the rationale of
>the producing companies is right now: Everyone must owe a digital
>camera very soon... And of course must change it in few years or
>months again!.. (otherwise how the profit will come through, apart the
>new/old recipe of using cheap and child and other well exploited
>labour in south east asia?)
>
>Now can you also listen the emerging cultural hegemony that loudly
>reiterates:
>oh buy digital, it is so cool... oh digital makes my photos shine...
>oh digital is so convenient i can take it to the bath... oh digital
>makes my coffee tastier... oh i must buy the D567 because it makes a
>pic in 1/1000 of a second quicker than my D566..
>
>All that is so nicely fitting with the simultaneous marginalisation
>(and often unreasonable stigmatisation) of the film (which you can
>find it almost nowhere now because of the industry's intentional
>shift).... How conveniently, this new digital discourse helps us to
>rationalise that we 'need' digital cameras.. it's such a progress...
>
>C.S.
>
>==============================================
>List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>==============================================
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Hotmail is evolving ? check out the new Windows Live Mail
http://ideas.live.com
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|