In a message dated 7/25/2002 9:50:18 AM Central Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> ERNR wrote: > > I agree "if digital can't deliver ... " but "right now it certainly > can't"? > > The important part of my quote you left off was "at a competitive price", > by > which I mean competitive with disposable cameras and low-end > point-and-shoot. It ain't there yet, and I don't see it getting there for > a > long time to come. Maybe they'll surprise us. > Although I didn't quote it, I thought I had addressed it by commenting that the reprint price was about the same. However, you are talking about initial price of the camera -- so okay, that's a factor still not on the same level. > Kodak (and the rest of them) have realized immense profits from manufacture > and sale of film -- a case of giving away the "razor" in order to make > profit in the sale of the "blades". Not sure if there are enough "blades" > in digital photography to make it attractive. Perhaps paper and ink sales > will one day provide the huge profit margins that conventional film today > supplies. If, on the other hand, the profits are squeezed primarily out of > services (photofinishing) rather than goods (film), I think Kodak may very > well cease to exist -- at least as the manufacturing company we know it as > today. > I can't argue with this. Business is not my strong field and it's been a long time since I took any economics classes. I think I see what you're saying, though. > > The masses *can* walk into an establishment with the digital camera > > in hand and get prints quite painlessly now. > > "Painless" is a relative term, I think. The initial equipment expense is > quite steep, and the cost of consumables -- batteries, in this case -- is > not a trivial expense. But aside from that, I'd agree that dropping off > your memory card at the local Wal-Mart is convenient. As long as nobody > damages your expensive card.... ;-) Batteries may not be a big deal either, depending on equipment. Some cameras -- mine, for instance -- don't use "consumable" batteries. I'm sure the proprietary rechargable will eventually die, but if it's going to be well over a year before it needs replacing, how "consumable" is the consumer going to consider that? Again, I have no rebuttal for your point about the initial cost of the camera. And you don't "drop off" the expensive memory card at Wal*Mart, from what I've seen -- you put it in the machine, download the data, push the friendly little buttons to place your order, remove your card and take it with you. Certainly that's how it works at the semi-pro lab where I actually do get prints made. > > > I shoot film when I want better quality; when the situation is low-light; > > when I want the images to have a better shot at longevity; when I want > > to use my Pentaxes. But of course I am picky.... > > Couldn't have put it better myself! But I have to concede that there's a > certain "fun factor" and an instant gratification that makes digital -- > with > all of what I perceive to be its shortcomings -- somewhat enticing. > I use a digital a lot for that kind of thing -- fun factor, instant gratification. Another big use of mine is for documenting church-related events where the ultimate goal is a Power-Point slide show and maybe some 4x6 reprints. They're happy to reimburse me for my costs, but if I shot film I would have to restrict myself severely to keep the film and processing costs low (and thereby not work the subject to get the kind of images I think the situation deserves). When I shoot with my own personal digital camera, for which I have already paid and which I use for my own purposes all the time, then I can give them my best 80 shots from the three- or four-day event on a CD-ROM. They never see the outtakes and they don't get to second-guess how much shooting I'm doing. They get maybe 80 pictures to play with for their slide show and don't know I shot three or four times that number. Incidentally my digital is great as a fly-on-the-wall camera -- it's small and silent. ON-TOPIC: when I do shoot film in the church setting (like, when the light is too low and I need fast glass and fast film) the ZX-5n works almost as well for fly-on-the-wall. (And the Canonet, but that's getting Off-T again.) Digital gives me the freedom to really work my subject, and experiment, without being restricted by a budget. (Again, noting that I have already bought the camera, batteries and cards.) Now I can set out to prove whether I really would shoot as well as a National Geographic photographer if I were free to make as many images! (So far -- no.) ERNR My photographs hang on the virtual walls at http://members.aol.com/ernreed - 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 .
