Jostein wrote:
Don't forget the whole "scrapbooking" craze. At least in the U.S. there are now whole chains of stores devoted to what are essentially just fancy photo albums. There are still a lot of consumers that prefer physical prints to digital images. And economically speaking, there are still millions of people who only take the occasional snapshot at family get-togethers and on vacation. For them, buying disposable film cameras makes a lot more economic sense then buying a computer, monitor, software, printer, photo paper, ink, digital camera, and memory which they then have to figure out how to use. In the end they end up with pictures that aren't any better then they could have gotten from Walgreens or Walmart, and instead of saving a whole bunch of money like a professional photographer, they're actually out a bunch of money they could have spent on Budweiser and frozen pizzas.
----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul, it's about economics, not quality.
Even more so in the consumer market, because you don't ever need to have a picture printed again. Many, many people are happy with viewing their pictures on the camera LCD. Add the ones who look at them on a computer monitor and you have the great majority of the modern camera buying public. The economic repercussions of this in the photographic marketplace have only just begun.
Dunno Mike,
I think if you drop the print from the consumer equation, you're basically into the realm of home video where stills will loose against moving pictures any day. I think that most of the consumers still shoot stills with a print in mind.
Jostein
Glenn
