> I've noticed some of the drug chains lately advertising that they can do
> prints cheaper than your ink jet.
That's not news. The cost of home made inkjet prints is appalling, even when
you don't count make-overs. I suppose that if the drugstore had inkjet
printers, their volume would reduce the cost a lot. The last time I looked
at one of the kiosks (why, oh why, did they have a totally different machine
for prints from digital, even in labs with up to date digital machines?) it
used a dye-sub printer, so the cost must be affected by volume.
> For most folks it's probably better quality too despite the fact that most
> drug store prints have never been
> particularly good.
But look at what most people get from their inkjet printers. I just want to
scream.
> They should all start to educate folks on the danger of losing their
> digital images. That could markedly increase the print business if
> people really understood how vulnerable their digital images are
> (including all their other digital files). I'm afraid that 50 years
> down the road we'll find there's a paucity of amateur images available
> from this period.
My sister is a college librarian at one of the largest college libraries,
tenure, full professor, lots of administrative responsibilities, and the
ability to direct several areas in the humanities. She is very concerned
about this. It appears that in that realm, you are either pushing digital
full force, or resisting im a big way. Not a lot of middle ground. The ones
that are concerned are mostly focused on this potential loss.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|