----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers)
> I'm sorry but your digital workflow listed below is not simpler than > 35mm film. > The 35mm camera is simpler, even a sosphisticated one, and it is much > easier to unload a film cassette and drop off then to have to > download and review and edit photos on a PC before dropping off. > > There are still plenty of people who don't want to and maybe don't > even know how to use the more complicated digicams and PCs. So I do > not agree with your original statement that digital is simpler > than 35mm film from a user standpoint, quite the contrary. >From my end of the business, I agree with you. The problem with digital is that there are more ways for the consumer to screw things up than there are with film. The main reason for digital's market penetration is that manufacturers have found a wonderful way to sell lots of new product to a gullible consumer who has spent the past 2 decades being primed for it. The word "digital" is a very powerful word to the consumer. It means quality and accuracy to them. Digital watches are more acurate than mechanical ones (lets stay mainstream here, Rolex doesn't sell a lot of watches from J.C. Penny). Weve been sold digital clocks, digital telephones, digital televisions, digitally remastered LP records, and digital music, and they have all provided some quality advantages to the consumer. That they are also cheaper to manufacture, since there are fewer moving parts is a huge advantage to the manufacturers as well. They don't have to be as well made to do the job. Everyone knows that computers are digital, and look at how wonderful they are. People buy a new one every couple of years, they like em so much. No surprise then that when the marketers discover a new goose that lays golden eggs they get behind it and start gathering eggs as fast as they can. The customer has already been brainwashed into thinking it will be better, there is a couple of decades of marketing behind digital cameras already. As a photofinisher, I like digital. When the results are crap, I can honestly tell the customer that digital is a "garbage in, garbage out" medium, and if they want good results, it's on them to provide me with good files. I don't have to put up with being accused of wrecking their film when they underexpose it 3 stops, and I don't have the risk of damaging their film. I don't have to worry about dust on negatives, or being clumsy and fingerprinting or scratching it. I don't get shit on because the foam off their DX window has fallen out and their film is fogged (my fault obviously, they didn't fog their film), nor is heat and age a factor in the quality of the file. As a photographer, I like digital within it's limitations. It is a pretty good replacement for colour negative film for snapshot use, and seems to becoming an accepted medium in advertising and stock photography, although I wonder how, when the quality doesn't come up to medium format film. I suspect that the same market forces that have shaped Joe Sixpack's views on digital have also shaped the views of art directors and owners of stock houses. William Robb
