Mark, this to me is a very valid comparison. The advantage of video was the immediacy of viewing compared with film, and the fact that you could show your work on ordinary domestic equipment with no special setting-up or third-party involvement. However, movie film is still used where it is important to obtain maximum quality, whether in advertising or entertainment film creation. I'm reasonably sure that the stills market will wind up exactly the same: amateur/snapshot use will switch largely to digital (assuming that the capacity to print directly from a printer becomes the norm), and equipment in that field will become much cheaper and quality levels will rise across the board. Dedicated shutterbugs will use film as long as it is available, and will continue to use processes and equipment as old almost as photography itself, for the sheer pleasure of it. For professionals, it may be that the trend to studio digital will become dominant, and that is purely a market decision. For news photoographers, I'm sure the battle is already decided in favour of digital, because of the immediacy of getting the results (I watched some footage on TV last night of some news photographers shooting someone in a car, and almost universally they looked at the LCD's on the back of the camera to check their results within seconds of the opportunity being over).
I'll still keep and use my wet darkroom for my own (private, at home, family and friends only!) exhibitions, but will also use digital for web based display - as I am sure will most of this group. Now all I need is the MZ-D.... John Coyle Brisbane, Australia On Thursday, February 14, 2002 2:20 AM, Mark Roberts [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > Still I can't help but think of those who predicted the death of super-8 > film when video was introduced... - 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 .
