----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom C" < Subject: Re: Future Practicality of Film
> Imagine my surprise when my input (and others I am sure) became the Advanced > Photo System format. > > ------- > > So what was the rationale behind it? I can understand the consumer side, > see the thumbnails, keep the film in the canister, etc., ... but was anyone > seriously into photography going to deliberately move to a smaller format? > > The rationale was customer convenience, plain and simple. I suppose that same question could have been asked post WW II regarding the upstart 35mm format compared to 120 roll film. Really serious photographers still don't use 35mm, they use large negatives. They do this because they are serious about the quality of the final print. We tend to call them "professional" photographers. The bulk of the market is people who want a 4x6 snapshot. All they need in a photograph is enough detail to allow them to recognize what it is a picture of, their memory will fill in the gaps. This is what the equipobators who think digital has to be 20 megapixels ignore in their pronouncements. The consumer buys what he/she is told to buy, and as long as it is "good enough", they will be happy. They aren't "serious" photographers, but they make a hell of a lot of money for Kodak, et al. Now, they are being told that digital is good enough. And, they are being told the truth. The truth is, a 2mp camera is good enough for most consumers. The truth is, they don't need to be a computer wizard to run the thing. The truth is, they don't even need a computer. And the truth is, when enough of them have bought enough digital cameras, and are no longer feeding Max 400 into their point and shoots, film will go away. William Robb
