NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very important, ARCHIVING. With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints.
With digital you now have the extra work of somehow transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD or some other digital media. That is NOT simple to someone with little computer literacy and even to someone who knows what they are doing it is extra work. So film is the simplest and easiest from a user standpoint. Not only that, when you delve into the "AUO EVERYTH ING" mode on cameras, film has the advantage because color print film, the overwhelming choice of the non-technical photographers, has much more exposure latitude and hence room for error than digital. Sure you can see a bad digital shot on the LCD and shoot again to fix it, but it is going to take knowledge and time to override the automatic settings, once again, not simpler than film. JCO -----Original Message----- From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers) J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > > Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions > of the process, that there are less steps and skills required to do > 35mm film than digital. That is simplicity. Your wrong digital is not > simpler or AS SIMPLE as 35mm film from a user standpoint. JCO > > You could treat your digital cam just like a film cam and the process would be identical. Take pics, drop off cf card, pick up pics. rg
