Yes, there will be some relatively small contingent of enthusiasts who'd
want to use it. "BIG HIT"? - I doubt that... It's more along the lines of
"widely known in narrow circles".
That is a niche similar to audiophiles still using vacuum-tube amplifiers
and/or vinyl LPs.
My point was that some 20 years ago the splash would've been much bigger.
It could've been a "disruptive" technology back then.
Now it would be marely "filling in into the remaining small gaps in a
small corner".
Igor
Thu Jun 16 12:58:34 EDT 2016 John wrote:
On 6/16/2016 11:09 AM, Igor PDML-StR wrote:
Dan,
I would call that photo "relics" or "defuncts", depending on the mood.
:-)
John,
As for that new machine, - I'd say, it's some 20-years too late.
It could've been a big hit in 1996 (assuming it would had been working
well).
Igor
Wouldn't work for everyone.
I still enjoy using film, but I no longer have any reasonably convenient
way to process it. I've got no room for a darkroom.
A daylight machine that cost less than a new camera body, handles
multiple processes & can be used without a dedicated darkroom would
appeal to me. I don't think I'm the only photographer who enjoyed the
process of turning film into images.
Bet it would be a BIG HIT with hipsters.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
[email protected]
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
