dunno about "no electricity" part, but, say, in many places ex-USSR, where a family can live on $200/month, digicams are more like status simbols (not dslrs, mind you). but almost every family has (and uses) a film camera (p&s). i am sure that similar things apply elsewhere too.
best, mishka On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 09:46:10 -0500, Graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That argument keeps coming up. It is silly, because people that poor are not > using film either. In actuallity you need electricity to set up a darkroom, > you > only need drycell batteries to us a digital camera. > > I am on the pro-film side of the street, but that is a straw-horse argument if > there ever was one. > > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > Joakim Johansson wrote: > > If we think about it for a second, it may strike us that the digital > > revolution is nothing but an easy summer breeze. In a global perspective > > that is. > > > > Still most people around the world doesn't even has electricity, and > > therefore certainly no DLSR.s. I don't think the film is dead! > > > >
