Everything except the "very expensive" part is solved already.
Also cost comparisons between film and digital that imply thousands of 6x4
prints are misleading in the extreme.
With film, a print is necessary simply to see the picture. The digital
picture doesn't need to be printed at all unless you want to make a
display print for hanging up.
mgduncan@esper.com (Mike Duncan) wrote:
> >From
> >>
> >"The CanoScan FS4000US will be my last 35mm scanner. It's more than
> adequate
> >to capture the detail in my images going back to the 1960's. Digital
> cameras
> >are improving so fast that I doubt I'll be using 35mm after 2002.
> Current
> >digital cameras approach 35mm in quality. There's plenty of debate on
> >whether they've surpassed 35mm already, but they certainly will by
> 2002. Any
> >digital camera you buy today will be obsolete in a year or two, but
> you have
> >to weigh the cost of the camera against the savings in film and
> processing.
> >The scale is tipping ever more strongly towards digital. Film sales
> will
> >soon start dropping like a rock; prices will go up and less popular
> films
> >will disappear. It's over for film."
>
> I used a digital camera at work 2 yrs ago, and the biggest problems
> were:
> It ate batteries.
> It didn't focus close enough.
> It was awkward to use.
> It was slow viewing and transfering images.
> You've only got one effective sensor speed.
> It was very expensive.
>
> I believe it will take a few years before the quality and cost issues
> equal
> film. It costs $7 to develop negatives and get double 4x6 prints. How
> much does it cost to print digital prints? At least $1 each for 4x6.
> Film
> is much cheaper. The scale is still strongly tipping towards film.
>
>
>
> Mike Duncan
>
>
>
