Mike wrote: > Uh, Pal, I shoot Kodak Tri-X with a variety of Pentax Spotmatics and develop > it in Kodak D-76. Your point again...?
My point is that you're bloody atypical! > But Pal, it *is* a global phenomenon. Film sales are down for the first time > since the fall of Saigon, and for the third year in a row. I far as I've heard Kodak report film sales loss of 5%. >Digital camera sales are growing exponentially. In > what way is digital photography NOT a "global phenomenon"?? Because I suspect that digital photography will follow the distribution on the personal computer whose density is very unevenly distributed. Unfortunately, this distribution doesn't mimic the distribution of cameras on a global basis. > It's certainly more expensive than film for many users. My point--and it is > a valid point--is that savings on film and development costs can at least > partially offset the increased expense of the hardware. Maybe not always, > for every user, but sometimes, for some users. You can't realistically > dispute this fact. I'm sure those who shoot tens of thousands of images a year will save a lot. The typical amateur with his gear and technology lust could easily end up paying as much, if not more, for digital. Your grandmother, who shoots 2-4 rolls a year will not be able to cover the cost of digital in her remaining lifetime! P�l
