Thanks, you illustrated this far better than I could. I had to tread lightly because I didn't have the knowledge of history to make any claims, but based on what you say, this is the first time in the photographic industry that there has been such a large uptake of such an immature product. Normally something would be well developed before the pros use it, then it would be even better sorted before becoming mass market. Digital became mass market waaaay before it wa ready - because the people were ready before the media was, and the marketing departments saw a massive demand and made promises that have still to be fulfilled. This has, however, speeded up the development and I believe within 5 years those promises will be met.
> -----Original Message----- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 24 October 2003 15:02 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! > > > True enough. It took 35mm 30 years to reach the point that it > was considered > good enough for professional use and another 10 to become > mainstream. Digital is > moving much faster than that but it is still an infant prodigy. > > > Rob Brigham wrote: > > Trouble is, that the people extolling the virtues of digital don't > > agree it is in its infancy. This 'infant' product is said > by many to > > have already killed film. What she is writing is to try > and point out > > the fact that it is still not developed enough to fulful > the promises > > being made - not that it never will. > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: arnie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: 24 October 2003 00:42 > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: Fascinating - a must read! > >> > >> > >>I imagine this is what they wrote when they came out with the > >>35mm format. digital is in its infancy, everyone understands > >>that. to predict its death now is ridiculous. what will they > >>say when standard digital is a 50mp sensor with 20 stops of > >>tolerance and 1 tb (terabyte) cards cost $25? granted > >>currently there are issues that still need to be worked out, > >>but that what all these companies are working on currently. > >> > >>about printers. HP recently invested $900,000,000 in > >>redeveloping their printer technology. they are not making > >>any of that back when i buy a 5550 for $99. they do however > >>make plenty of money when i buy a cartridge for $35. keep in > >>mind that if the cartridges did not subsidize the printer it > >>would probably cost in the thousands. > >> > >>arnie > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 12:17 PM > >>Subject: Fascinating - a must read! > >> > >> > >> > >>>http://www.dantestella.com/technical/digital.html > >>> > >>>I really enjoyed reading this one > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com > > "You might as well accept people as they are, > you are not going to be able to change them anyway." > > >
