Bill, If I hear you correctly, you are saying that consumers wanted a much larger quantity of inferior photos rather than a smaller quantity of superior photos. And that is just what they got.
-- Best regards, Bruce Monday, May 2, 2005, 5:46:44 AM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: "John Francis" WR> Subject: Re: Apples and Oranges (was Re: Why and How I switched to Canon WR> (for those who care) long) >> >> What is bogus is to lay the blame for the lowering of photographic >> standards at the feet of digital. Even before digital cameras >> showed up, it was getting increasingly difficult to find a lab >> that was capable of doing decent quality work - more and more >> were being put out of business by the minilabs. WR> Photographic standards have been being lowered since the Canon AE-1 hit the WR> market and brought exposure automation to the table in a big way. WR> The minilab was an answer to a market desire to see their crappy badly WR> exposed pictures faster (digital is another manifestation of that, IE: WR> Chimping). WR> After that, it was cheap ass consumers not being willing to pay for quality WR> that did the rest. WR> Don't lay the blame for something that was consumer driven at the feet of WR> the lab industry, all it did was do what the marketplace told it to do. WR> The consumers didn't bother to think things through, and is now pissed off WR> for his/her stupidity, and is blaming the mess on what they created, rather WR> than placing the blame where it belongs. WR> Minilabs, when they first hit the market, were often a front for a full WR> service lab, designed to take the weight of quick proofing off the service WR> lab, to allow more resources to be dedicated to custom work. WR> They were never meant to be the end of the line, which is what they have WR> been morphed into. WR> William Robb
