[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Re: Why Oly is in a hole

Subject: Re: [OM] Re: Why Oly is in a hole
From: "C.H.Ling" <chling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:31:29 -0700
John Petrush wrote:
> I had a long reply that I deleted as too rambling, then read Brad's reply,
> so I'll try again, hopefully more succinctly this time.
> When it comes to cost effectiveness and productivity, digital is already the
> clear leader.  With very humble equipment, I can take an image from an idea
> to finished art ready for reproduction in less than an hour.  Traditional
> film can't even begin to dream of that.  If I had stock in Polaroid, I'd be
> selling it quickly now.

John, I think what Brad means is the cost for obtaining a good quality
hardcopy. What most people involving in digital photo are using their
ink jet printer to get the hardcopy. But the price is not cheap, with
ink and paper it will cost around 2 to 2.5 US for a A4, but ink does not
last long, it fade with time. And quality? still cannot match with
silver halide process. Some people may use dye-sub printer, a 5x3.5"
print cost more than 1 US and a A4 cost around 3-4 US. You also have to
invest on the printer. How can you get a 16x20 print by yourself? And
how can you make your own slide?

With existing silver halide process, a 5x3.5" print here in Hong Kong
cost only HKD1.0 (around 0.13US).

Accura Digital Imaging

< 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 >

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz