----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: some interesting NG thoughts on digital consumers
> In a message dated 12/4/01 10:42:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
>
> > > I agree 1000%. Until I can do everything with digital I can with
> > > film, until I can take digital media into a good lab and get great
> > > results, I am not inclined to invest any further in it. Let's see...
> > > I can spend my time messing wth software and printers, or I can let
> > > someone else do that part while I'm out pressing the shutter release.
> >
> > "Valid points, but you *can* do this with good labs."
>
> Yes, but the expense is outrageously unreasonable for just a few prints.
>
> > always argue that the price of printers, paper and ink
> > need to be factored into comparing digital and film cameras?"
>
> Precisely because you don't need the above to see prints. You don't even
need
> a computer: go to the drugstore-etc., open package and look. And why do
> digital advocates always assume that "Granny" has a computer or some other
> means to see their ofttimes shabby product?
See Mafud? This is what we are talking about, prints for "Granny". Do
you think Joe Sixpack goes to the local pro lab to get these done? Go to a
Wla-Mart, get your prints from digital media (at the same price as film) and
then send them to Granny.
>
> > good minilab into the purchase of your film
> > camera?"
>
> That's a Shibboleth.
>
> "If you don't want to print them yourself, take the files to a good lab
and
> let them do
> > it...just like film. Don's Photo, for example, charges the same for
prints
> > from digital files as from film. This isn't a rant against you, Tom,
but
> > against those people who criticize digital cameras because of problems
with
> > home printing."
>
> Another good reason to shoot film: ~you~ only need a camera and eyes to
shoot
> and Granny only need eyes to view them, the way it's been for more than a
> one-hundred years.
>
> What did ~you~ do before you had a digital? In that regard, the "digital
is
> equal to or better than film" argument falls squarely on its expensive
face.
> Those who argue the convenience of small format digital, without
considering
> the cost to an individual, disregard one fundamental fact: small format
> digital owners pay, in terms of replacing or upgrading equipment,
ink-etc.,
> huge sums of money to get what are essentially dinky home printed images.
> Small format digital printing is expensive and for the most part, SUX.
I really wish you'd preface these sorts of comments with, "In my
experience". That way, when we say that things have changed, you could just
say that you haven't seen it yet, instead of trying to prove us wrong. The
facts of the matter are that for my customers that shoot a couple of rolls a
week, a $399 digital camera is saving them lots of money, and they haven't
noticed a drop off in quality for their 4x6 prints. Many do not do any
printing at all at home, we do it all for them. Cost of printing and ease of
printing are not (at least here) arguments against using digital cameras for
"regular" snapshooters...
Isaac
-
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 .
