Re: filmscanners: Review on Canon FS4000/film is dead

["Rob Geraghty" <harper@wordweb.com>]

"Tomasz Zakrzewski" <tomzakrz@ka.onet.pl> wrote:
> I have a question to people writing to this list: do all of you use still
> film only because digital cameras as not good enough yet? Or are here
people
> who see clear benefits of silver halide technology for themselves?

There's still a lot of people in the world who don't have a computer or
wouldn't know how to use one well enough to get decent prints from a
printer.  Most people find it more convenient to share a photo album than
sit in front of a screen unless you're sending pictures to friends and
family a long way away and who happen to be on the internet.  Prints from PC
printers using OEM inks and papers won't last any significant amount of time
and cost more for photographic quality than Fuji Crystal Archive prints you
can get from the local one hour lab.

A lot of people can afford a $150 compact camera.  Not so many can afford a
$500 digital camera.

>From the perspective of a serious (non-professional) photographer, I can't
get a digital camera which gives me similar quality of output for a similar
price to a film camera, let alone one which allows me to use all my existing
lenses and other gear.  Producing pictures in jpeg format is a major problem
IMO.

Digital cameras are still in the toy category for most of the market.
They're not yet as useful as a cheap compact camera.  It's the majority of
the market which will determine when the move to digital takes place, not
the semi-pro or pro photographers.

Anyway, for me at least the cost/benefit isn't there yet.  I'll be scanning
film for quite a while to come.

Rob