This isn't surprising. I think most consumers just want to be able to take pictures with as little inconvenience as possible. Your numbers certainly suggest that to be the case. I'm guessing a significant chunk of your printing business is from digital files. My wife received almost 200 prints in the mail today, entirely shot with the 750z. What's terrible is that the local labs near us are providing a service/product that isn't any better (in some cases worse) than the mail order printers, but they're charging quite a bit more. We're certainly willing to pay more for printing if the quality is there. But when the quality is just as good or better and the price is lower, it's a no-brainer. I would imagine that most folks don't care so much about quality and are interested only in the bottom line. Your numbers also suggest that to be true. Unfortunate.
On 10/1/05, William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's like watching a good friend slowly succumb. > I ran volume numbers yesterday for the past three summer seasons (July and > Auguat). > The highest film processing volume my lab has done was 2003, and I still had > access to those numbers as well as 2004/2005. > I will treat 2003 as my baseline. > Here's breakdown, by percentage: > > Film processing > 2003: 100% > 2004: 72% > 2005: 56% > > Print volume > > 2003: 100% > 2004: 82% > 2005: 65% > > > William Robb > > > -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- "You have to hold the button down" -Arnold Newman
