Does it really drive people to digital? I believe that digital has brought
us a third choice and now we have
- prints (look at in an album),
- slides (look at on the projector screen), and
- digital (look at on the PC or TV or ultimately, the LCD projector
screen)
Are consumers who switch to digital point & shoot getting their pictures
printed or do they all have a PC?
Sure the negs won't be scratched. but how long before we start to hear
'they destroyed my flash card', 'they accidentally deleted the files and
I've erased my card since'.
Are the digital p&s cameras any better at setting the correct exposure than
film p&s?
Can the digital printer compensate for under/over exposure better than with
film?
So many questions and so little time to take pix and drink beer...
best regds
Jez
I just took a set of photos back to the processor because all the prints
looked badly overexposed, even though the negatives were all perfect. I
have been having more and more trouble getting competent photofinishing. I
suspect that this problem is universal, and may be contributing to the rise
of digital, despite the limitations of current consumer-level digital
cameras: to the average bear, the photos look equally good (bad, really),
and people don't know what they are missing. Perhaps the average bears are
correct to go to digital.
Joe Gwinn
< 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 >
|