Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >When chemical photography first started anyone doing it was an enthusiast >- they had to be. Later when someone offered to develop and print as a >service, well-to-do families could take their own pics and let that >someone do all the technical stuff. Later still a few tried the technical >stuff themselves, some took to it, some didn't and went back to leaving >it to the enthusiasts and professionals. > >Digital is no different IMO. Relatively speaking, early traditional >photography cost an arm and a leg in the beginning. Those that can, and >wanted to, did. Those that didn't, didn't.
I think Cotty's onto something here. Right now, digital is, to a large extent, complicated, expensive and inconvenient. It's where photography was in the mid/late 19th century. It's going to get cheaper, easier and less expensive but it's going to take time, money and trial and error. My approach has been to let the early adopters finance the R & D, take the time, deal with the headaches and work out the incompatibilities. *Before* I buy in. I'm almost ready :-) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
