mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Well, as long as they buy the print I'm not picky... > >I think this is an area where the photographic industry has dealt >itself a severe, if not mortal, blow. If you give Mr & Mrs Sixpack >(who _do not care_ about quality) a way to look at their pictures for >free, how can you possibly expect them to buy prints?
Well, I was naturally thinking of them buying prints of *my* photos, to frame and hang on the wall. And they aren't getting *those* for free if I can help it <g> But your point is well taken. The industry has been reassuring itself by saying, essentially, "it's all about the print". In other words, that they can always sell prints to consumers, even in the digital age. I can clearly remember when I got my first film scanner: My immediate reaction was "Yee ha! I don't have to bother getting prints to see my photos any more!" No more boxes of prints to store! I suspect a lot of regular consumers (not all of them) feel this way, too. Having boxes of prints to store is a hassle. Perhaps they'll regret it years down the road, after a major hard drive crash, but the number of people I've known with lost negatives and prints over the years makes me think it's a case of "plus ca change..." Digital doesn't make it *more* likely that people will lose their precious family photos, it just means it'll happen in a different way. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
