>I would never understand why people would pay so much for the digital
>cameras just for snap shots only.
>
>regards,
>Alan Chan
I can tell you why. It gets *extremely* frustrating to take pictures you
know are decent with a camera you know is decent and still end up with
prints that are just awful.
Going digital, even for snapshots, removes the Achilles heel of the film
business (by removing the colorblind, poorly paid, poorly-trained machine
operator in the photolab from the loop). When my snapshots suck, I want it
to be because *I* took a lousy picture and not because someone who doesn't
care, or doesn't know how to operate their equipment screwed my snapshots
up.
Spending a few hundred bucks over the cost of a nice camera to get a nice
digital camera and with it freedom from the tyrany of the photolab is worth
it to a lot of people.
Being able to email snapshots to friends and family without having to go to
the photolab first is icing on the cake.
I'm here, though, 'cause the pictures I've seen from digital cameras have
no soul. Some lenses, and some some films, have soul-that indefinable
something extra that is really hard if not impossible to quantify, but
still seems to exist, at least for a few people. (as an aside, I suspect
that Pentax is working *really* hard to put soul into their limited series).
Once some digital cameras manage to acquire soul, there probably won't be
much reason for me to stick with film.
Dan Scott
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Visit the PUG at
http://pug.komkon.org.
