Jerry wrote: <snip>
> Anyone who works in an office or goes to school MUST use a computer. I > don't know the statistics, but I think around half of the people in the US > and other industrialized countries have access to a computer. Access to a computer does not translate to wanting to use it, or skill in doing digital processing. Most people just want to take photos and show them to friends or send them to relatives. A computer can facilitate this, or, if the reciving party does not have one, hinder it. There are A LOT of people out there that couldn't care less about computers (my father in-law) and don't want to use or understand them. There are others who can't afford them > > It's true that consumer digital cameras have been promoted as computer > peripherals more than as photographic tools. But that's changing. As their > prices come down, they are being marketed as superior substitutes for 35mm > point & shoots. Ritz and others promote this idea already, by making prints > from "digital film" just like they do with 35mm. > Key words being "marketed as superior substitutes". Most people won't go buy a 2nd P&S if the one they likes is working just fine. Marketing digital as superior creates more sales. > For non-photography business use, digital has been preferred over film for > several years already. If you don't need great resolution, it's wonderful > to have the immediacy and easy image storage of digital. True and a very good use of even lo-res equipment/. > > For high volume professional photography or photojournalism, I can't imagine > anyone starting out today choosing film over digital. Digital image quality > (using professional digital SLRs or medium format digital backs) is > excellent, and I'm sure the the equipment cost is easily justified by > savings in film & procesing. But is it as good? > > 35mm film has only one market that digital has not yet dominated - the > single-use camera. I see this as the last bastion of film. I really don't > know the demographics of single-use camera buyers, but I suspect they are > mostly people who have NO interest in photography, and don't take many > pictures other than the obligatory Christmas morning or family vacation > photos. Since they have so few photos, image storage isn't much of an > issue, and a photo album is just as easy (or easier) to use than a CD, etc. > And since they have so little interest in photography, they will use > whatever tool is cheapest, which for the moment is the 35mm single-use > camera. Single-use camera buyers are not necessarily lacking in spending > money or computer literacy, so whenever a digital camera appears that is as > cheap as a single use film camera, and can produce decent 4" x 6" images, > digital may take over this market, too. > > However, being the most popular film size, with a large number of cameras in > use, I'm sure 35mm film will be around for a long time. But as the market > shrinks, there will of course be fewer different films available, and > processing will become more expensive and less widely available. > > If I only cared about the final image, didn't already own TOO MANY cameras, > and didn't have any budget restrictions, I'd be using a digital SLR. > However, I'm a collector as well as a photographer. I use 35mm SLRs because > they're FUN. I plan to continue doing so, without worrying about whether or > not my technology is outdated. > > Jeff The final image is what counts the most. I'm not demonizing digital by any means. I'm sure someday I will buy a 2nd digital camera. For now though, I like film. I like it's quality (ies) and I like being able to hold a 1st generation image slide in my hand. I'm touchy feely. :-) Tom C. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
