Good quality digital cameras have been around for several years, and they're
available at reasonable prices. With a relatively young but mature
technology, we should expect that digital cameras would be prolific, no
doubt they are. However, on a recent vacation to Queensland, nearly
everyone was using a film-based camera. Cairns has many camera stores, and
it's hard to walk more than 25 meters without seeing a place to get your
film processed. Film is available everywhere. Interestingly, my only
sighting of a video camera was underwater at the Great Barrier Reef.
The most telling tale is that Kodak's film sales in the USA INCREASED by 2%
last year, in spite of the downturn in the US economy. The photography
market is big enough for digital and film, but my observation leads me to
believe that film is still king.
John
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, November 13, 2001 2:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: Could be worse
In a message dated 11/12/01 11:32:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This has been true for literally the whole history of photography, as each
improvement in convenience makes the hard-won expertise of the previous
generation of practitioners obsolescent. It was true in the 1880s when the
hand camera craze began and started to put portrait studios out of
business.
Each genre of photography survives, adored by some, eschewed by others but
each genre survives. Large format photography, in the form of $495 4x5 Kadet
field cameras, is flourishing again. Still Photography itself was pronounced
dead with the arrival of the Video camera. SLR bodies obsoleted
rangefinders and Box-pinhole-folding cameras... right!
Polaroid's instant gratification photos were going to put KODAK out of the
film camera/maker business... right?
Surprisingly, millions of those who rushed out to buy digital whatever
cameras are flocking back to the simplicity of the PS chemical camera
because they can now take their film to the drugstore, have their images
transferred to CD and manipulate them on their PCs just as digital only
folks are doing.
We must also be aware of the millions of digital owners, none of whom will
go
back to chemical, who, finding that producing acceptable, photorealistic
digital prints too onerous, too labor intensive and time consuming, are
simply parking their digitals on the same high shelf in the same closet
where
they parked their chemical cameras.
**There is one crowd who has sucked up 110% to digital whatever: teens. But
then, teens are also driving the wireless (electronic talking gadget)
craze.
No matter how some might wish or predict that digital will or should take
over the hobby/craft/profession of photography, it's not likely to happen
soon, if at all.
As long as there are BILLIONS of people around the world who will buy
one-use
or cheap point and shoot film camera, and if we remember, these categories
of
picture takers number in the gazllions, chemical photography will survive.
** Besides, there are NOT ~that~ many people in this world who can afford 1.
~Any~ digital camera 2. A computer 3. A printer 4. Electricity.
As long as those conditions prevail in the world, chemical imaging will
survive.
Mafud
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
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 .
-
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 .
