Suckered! was: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!

[Bruce Rubenstein]

Pal didn't directly respond to the case presented in the original post. He responded to what Pal thinks about what Pal does. If we stick to granny, then we're talking about 4x6 prints, and a $500 P&S digital will be adequate until it wears out. A computer isn't even needed for doing your own inkjet prints: hook the camera/plug in the memory card, preview it on the printer's built in LCD and go. It's probably at lest as good as what grandma has been getting from drugstore prints all these years. If granny does have a computer, then she doesn't even need a printer, because you can get prints done by an online service.
Watching you two guys is like watching a used car salesman sell to a 3 Card Monte dealer.

BR

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

I know a grandmother who shoots film with a point-and-shoot. She goes
through about one camera every five or six years, and she paid about $150
for her last camera. But she shoots 80 rolls of film a year and pays $14 a
roll for film and processing. That's $30 a year for the camera and $1120 a
year for film and processing. Now, would she be better off buying a $500
digicam and incurring no film and processing costs for the next five years?
You do the arithmetic. Would she be "saving" money? Of course she would.
It's no illusion. It's not a trick. It's an actual savings that would be
realized in the ongoing operational costs--savings that would far more than
offset the increase in the initial investment.

I don't buy this argument for a moment. Firstly, theres something call
consumerism and consumer society. If you change into the digital workflow and
infrastructure you can bet you want to ugrade and stay current with the
digital progress (which means that any digital camera becomes obsolete in six
months).

Well, for the record, I don't buy _your_ argument for a moment either. Just
run the numbers above. She pays an extra $350 for the camera and saves $1120
in film and processing costs the first year. That means she recovers the
cost of the camera in three months and three weeks. I don't care HOW zealous
you are about keeping up with the times, anybody can be expected to keep any
camera for just short of four months at a minimum! If she keeps the camera
for just one year, her saving are substantial.

The argument that if you're happy with it when you buy it, you'll be
happy with it forever simply isn't true and never has been. If it were true we
be all be using the same film we were happy with 20 years ago.

Uh, Pal, I shoot Kodak Tri-X with a variety of Pentax Spotmatics and develop
it in Kodak D-76. Your point again...?

We upgrad to better specified products whenever we can whether we need it or not. With six
months life span this is nightmare for those who must, or even only want, the
latest thing. Secondly, the infrastructure invested needed to take real
advantage to digital is immense

(and a reason why digital won't be a global
phenomenon in the near future like film based photography is).

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. Point-and-shoot
sales are stagnant for the first time since the 1980s, and beginning to
decline. Sales of certain film products such as premium point-and-shoots and
enlargers have been virtually gutted. Both electronics companies and camera
companies are putting the large majority of both their R&D budgets and
advertising budgets into digital. Polaroid went from a blue chip to
bankruptcy in a decade. Digital camera sales are growing exponentially. In
what way is digital photography NOT a "global phenomenon"?? Perhaps it is
not yet the dominant technology in consumer picture-taking, but give it
time. It's certainly heading in that direction. We've only had affordable
megapixel+ digicams for a few years now.

Even someone like me would need a new computer with specifications adequate to work with i!
mages on my computer. Of course, this computer need constant upgrading to keep
pace with the digital camera upgrades. The high quality photo printer plus
running expenses. Not to mention storage mediums etc.
One thing is certain, the day I switch to digital it won't be because it is
cheap.

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.

--Mike