I think we are violently agreeing, just from different directions. As we
compare digital to film, we are generally doing so with our favorite
emulsions (the ones that will slowly be discontinued). If all that was left
was Gold 200 and Superia 400, digital might be more appealing. I do agree,
that photofinishing being widespread and relatively inexpensive, has had a
major positive impact on film sales. The changes you describe could be
devastating.
One of the local Ritz shops here has a system where you pop in your memory
card (all types supported), pick the images you want to print from the
screen. They are then printed on a dye sub printer with a protective
overcoating applied (looks glossy) in about 1 minute each. Current price is
69 cents each/qty 1. If photofinishing becomes regulated as you say, I
could see this being the thing that turns the masses to digital.
Bruce Dayton
Sacramento, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce Dayton"
> Subject: Re: Slides vs. digital
>
>
> > Sadly, the numbers are against us. The fact that it is slowly
> starting to
> > happen is an indicator.
>
> I still disagree with this. Even if what Mike says about SLR
> users abandoning film in droves is true, the SLR user is not who
> is driving the film market right now. Compacts have outsold SLRs
> by about 10:1 over the past 15 years, and this is the market
> that is driving film sales. This market keeps getting bigger.
> The compact market is also very price conscious. The base cost
> of a point and shoot is about 1/5th of a comparably featured
> digital camera.
> I can certainly see a diminishment in the number of emulsions.
> The loss of Ektar 25, Ultra and APX 25 is a blow to the SLR
> user, but went completely unnoticed by the other 95% of the
> marketplace.
> We forget that we are already an extreme minority in the photo
> marketplace. Our numbers (that would be the film based SLR
> photographer) may get smaller, but as a whole, film sales
> continue to expand.
> What does worry me is the politics of photofinishing. What may
> well kill silver based imaging is governments regulating
> effluent discharge to the point it is not viable to run a photo
> lab. In California, silver effluent discharge is already
> regulated to below the level of naturally occurring silver in
> many water systems (which is REALLY ridiculous). While labs now
> do practice silver recovery, we still discharge a lot of
> chemistry down the drain. At some point, the bureaucrats are
> going to realize that they need to regulate this, if for no
> other reason than to make room for more bureaucrats in the work
> force.
> This will make photo processing more expensive, as complying
> with government regulations always costs more than it is worth.
> As the price goes up, the volume will go down. This will make
> the entire industry less profitable, and will probably be the
> beginning of the end for silver imaging.
> William Robb
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
