On 25/8/04, Toralf Lund, discombobulated, unleashed: >But what I was driving at was more of the images-on-the-PC way of doing >things. I think the way most people with digicams operate today, is they >transfer the files to the PC, then clear the memory card and possibly >email the pictures to some of their friends, and then, well. That's it >really. Possibly, they intended to send the data somewhere across the >Net in order to get them printed, but they just never get around to >doing it. And they never take backups or anything. So what I'm wondering >is what these people will do: > > 1. If they realise (I think many will) that they don't ever look at > their pictures anymore, because they're buried down somewhere on > the PC's harddrive, and not sitting in an album or hanging on the > wall. > 2. After they've lost *all* their pictures because the disk crashed, > or they messed up somehow, i.e. deleted the wrong folder, forgot > all about the pictures when reformatting before reinstalling > Windows or whatever. > 3. They find that the pictures are even less accessible than assumed > in 1) because they're on the old PC's harddrive, or the one of 3 > PCs before the current (the brand-new 1Thz Pentium 17 thingy.) > > >And of course, two years possibly isn't long enough to tire of a new toy >even if you liked it just because it was a new toy, if you know what I'm >saying.
Very valid points. What I would say is that the industry is pushing this PictBridge thing, where cards can poop out of a camera and pop straight into a printer, as well as these automated printing machines, not to mention that labs are now geared up to printing straight from digital. I would hazzard a guess that about 95% of all digital images shot won't go through a computer unless to email friends and family. We are the exception. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
