Stright talk Doris, and I agree with you. There is
another factor you touched on, how long will digital
last or have the equipment to recover the format it is
stored in. I know that 950f my prints wind up in a
shoe box, but the other 5% are valuable to me.
Pictures of my children, now almost out of the nest,
my first wife, lost to cancer 15 years ago, friends,
some still here, some now far away, and other
treasured times. Mr. Chen mentioned Hobby
Astronomy....well the profesionals are lamenting data
gathered in the 70,s and 80,s by CCD's that is now
lost, while glass plates taken 50 to 100 years ago can
still be consulted for useful information. As in
everthing not all "progress" is really progress, and
often by the time man finds the bugs it is too late to
back up and correct the mistakes. John Robison
--- *- DORIS FANG -* <sfsttj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 2 Apr 2000, Joseph Chen wrote:
>
> > Face it, digital is the future.
>
> It is. The beast is slouching towards Rochester.
> :-)
>
> Already, digital
> > imaging is superior to film-based photography in
> some respects (cost per
> > exposure,
>
> Not to the average snapshooter. Think of it like
> this: Cost of a camera
> capable of delivering 8x10's..........(OM, of
> course).............$1,500
> Storage media capable of carrying 72 high quality
> exposures.......$ 200
> Cost of paper and ink for 125 photo-quality 4x6
> prints.......$ your call
>
> --------
>
> 1,700
> As has been pointed out before, the average
> snapper
> can do this in the silver/analog world with a $100
> camera
> and $80 worth of film and processing, AND crank out
> a passable 11x14 print, which his $1.5k camera (and
> let's not
> forget the $1.5k computer, .5k photo-quality
> printer, etc)
> cannot do. Plus, the camera and computer will be
> dumpster food
> in 5-7 years, meaning the true costs are much, much
> higher.
> Something in the order of $600/yr. I know geeks like
> us
> are used to these costs, but many others are not.
> Plus, the prints banged out lovingly (and in
> time-consuming fashion)
> at home on the olde epson of the kid's
> kindergarten play will fade long before the kid
> graduates from grade
> school. Current Kodak-paper (Series 8) prints will
> last 150 years.
>
> > speed of processing,
>
> Mommies get in the Mini-van, drop off the film to
> be processed,
> and get it in 1 hr. How much faster is digital going
> to be ? Now,
> home processing is the realm of geeks with plenty of
> time to devote
> to it. The two-job and parenting snapshooter is too
> busy
> with real life and kids to geek for hours making a
> few prints. Much
> easier --- not to mention faster --- to pick up the
> double-print envelope
> from the 1 hr.
>
> > Digital imaging will not only match film imaging
> but will far surpass the
> > capabilities of film. CCDs have incredible
> sensitivity and exposure
> > latitude. Use of high-line CCD devices have
> revolutionized amateur
> > astronomy. Likewise, it will revolutionize
> photography by allowing image
> > creation under incredibly difficult lighting
> conditions.
>
> All true, hopefully, and perhaps we'll all live
> long enough
> for the technology to cost less than 5-10K for the
> body...:-)
>
> > This is not to say that our beloved OMs are dead
> yet. For now, we should be
> > just content to burn through as much film as
> possible and use up all those
> > shutter cycles before tossing whatever we have
> left into Oly's forthcoming
> > professional digital imaging system.
>
> Until someone besides Polaroid starts making a
> sizeable profit
> from digital camera sales, specially to snapshooters
> (who drive the
> entire image-making industry), pro-quality digital
> systems will be
> basically low-volume custom pieces. If the economy
> ceases to grow at this
> rate er...eternally, that R&D (ad)venture capital
> will be among the first
> to evaporate. As much as we like to think that the
> Internet is everything
> to come...few e-companies are making a profit (not
> even Amazon!)
> and the big numbers in stock prices are purely
> speculative. E-sales
> are currently (according to the industry's own
> figures) less than
> 30f all retail sales. Yes, I know all this will
> change (as the Sanyo
> Sensei said: film cameras gone by 2002, right ?)
> soon, but a little
> voice (in a Bart Simpson voice) keeps whispering:
> "Are we there yet ?".
>
> *= Doris
> Fang =*
>
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing
> List >
> < For questions,
> mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page:
> http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|