Re: those tests

[Steve Jolly]

There's nothing wrong with getting prints (the "old-fashioned" way), but 
I can see it getting increasingly pointless.  Why bother getting prints 
made when all your friends and family have internet access?  Unless you 
see them on a daily basis, sharing your photos via a website is probably 
a better solution all round.  Speaking personally, until I can afford a 
DSLR which meets my needs, I'll stick to getting my films developed and 
scanning the negatives, primarily for that reason.

S

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's wrong with the old-fashioned "take film to the photofinisher and 
get prints" approach?  Why not buy a cheap film point-and-shoot for 
substantially less than the "modern digital camera"?  Since when was 
Pentax accused of making "bulky and expensive" SLRs?

The film-plus-computer-and-scanner thing is at the moment perhaps the 
WORST route for normal uses because it is expensive and tends to lose 
quality.  However, what this really replaces is a FULL COLOR DARKROOM 
because it gives you custom control and such.  For normal uses, this is 
overkill and you'd be better off taking your film to the corner store.

Computer-based photoprocessing is really only for people who need 
electronic format output, or need digital editing.  The photofinishing
industry has been trying very hard to remove the need for computers
from the digital camera workflow--the pool of computer-owning, 
computer-literate snapshooters is a lot smaller than the pool of people
who can take their digital P&S to the corner store and get prints made.