Digital photography "revolutionary"

Not one but three articles in the May 23, 2005 edition of the San
Francisco Chronicle proclaiming how digital photography is
"revolutionary."

"SPECIAL REPORT on digital photography: You don't have to be a
revolutionary to see revolutionary results. In the past five years,
digital photography has gone from a niche market for early adopters to a
dominant platform that has changed not only the photo industry, but
society itself. In a special report, The Chronicle examines our
increasingly pixelized world.*"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUG5MCS1RK1.D
TL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUG5MCS1RI1.D
TL

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../BUG5MCS1RO1.D
TL


The tide is inescapable!

nitram writes:

They should have consulted Mixi.

I've noticed a tremendous increase in the proportion of tourist cameras
that are digital, at least among tourists from affluent countries, but
that's the only change I've seen. Labs are doing better than ever, with
both large volumes of film and large volumes of digital customers, all
coming in to get prints--which represent the bulk of lab revenue,
anyway. Digital photography doesn't do away with that, it just expands
the market for it.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

nitram writes:

but it has effected major producers of film and B/W print paper.

At least one of those major producers is so incompetently managed that
I'm surprised it survives atall. Some producers choose to jump on the
digital bandwagon without looking to see where the real revenue comes
from.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

poldy wrote:
The tide is inescapable!

It's been quite a few years since I've had a camera as since the last
time my car was boosted and most of the equipment stolen, I've had a
emopsychlogical block that prevented me from getting another camera.

In fewer about ten hours, I'll be on m'way to Yosemite.

Today I did three things:

Ate. Packed. Bought a new camera.

Yes, it's digital.

I spent 4.5 hours studying the instructions and am not sure I know how
to use it although my foundation with film and understanding of the
basics of photography let me believe that I might be able to get some
decent shots with the 28-200mm (equivalent) lens.

But there's a lot about the camera I don't understand. If I don't by
this time tomorrow, I'll be semi-suicidal.

The next challenge, that I've not even considered yet, is uploading the
images (if any) to this machine and . . . and . . . then what? I dunno.
I'll find out.
__________________________________________________ _________________
A San Franciscan in (where else?) San Francisco.
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ - http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 --- IClast at SFbay Net

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

nitram writes:

They should have consulted Mixi.

I've noticed a tremendous increase in the proportion of tourist cameras
that are digital, at least among tourists from affluent countries, but
that's the only change I've seen. Labs are doing better than ever, with
both large volumes of film and large volumes of digital customers, all
coming in to get prints--which represent the bulk of lab revenue,
anyway. Digital photography doesn't do away with that, it just expands
the market for it.

I don't think Kodak's film business is prospering that much.

That is why they've gone whole hog into digital.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

nitram writes:

They should have consulted Mixi.

I've noticed a tremendous increase in the proportion of tourist cameras
that are digital, at least among tourists from affluent countries, but
that's the only change I've seen. Labs are doing better than ever, with
both large volumes of film and large volumes of digital customers, all
coming in to get prints--which represent the bulk of lab revenue,
anyway. Digital photography doesn't do away with that, it just expands
the market for it.

I don't think Kodak's film business is prospering that much.

That is why they've gone whole hog into digital.

poldy writes:

I don't think Kodak's film business is prospering that much.

Kodak's film business is a major cash cow, and finances many of their
boondoggles.

That is why they've gone whole hog into digital.

No, they are going whole-hog into digital _despite_ the cash cow of film
because they are too stupid to know any better. The history of Kodak
management is an amazing series of egregiously poor decisions.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Mxsmanic wrote:
poldy writes:

I don't think Kodak's film business is prospering that much.

Kodak's film business is a major cash cow, and finances many of their
boondoggles.


Hard to tell. The group the "Digital and Film Imaging Services"
together in one division. They do mention that they are expanding
their "thermal capcity" in Colorado and Rochester, but it isn't
clear what that is. They also mention that the "entertainment"
industry still prefers film, although they are preparing to
convert over to digital. The finally do mention a large business
in Kiosks and cheap film cameras still doing well. Just hard
to tell where all the money comes from. The combined earnings
though are about 4 times the next closest division.


That is why they've gone whole hog into digital.

No, they are going whole-hog into digital _despite_ the cash cow of film
because they are too stupid to know any better. The history of Kodak
management is an amazing series of egregiously poor decisions.

Oh, cut 'em a bit of slack. They've been chasing a rapidly changing
technology for the better part of 2 decades, and it's only getting
worse. They acknowledge that one of the big sellers of their kiosk
business is folks printing out cell phone pictures onto print. Now
who'd a known 5 years ago there'd even be such a business.

On Tue, 24 May 2005 11:44:29 +0200, nitram wrote:

Some producers choose to jump on the
digital bandwagon without looking to see where the real revenue comes
from.

The source of real revenue is not static.

Yeah, it keeps popping outside to take photos. Dammit.
--
Tim C.

On 24 May 2005 02:51:08 -0700, wrote:

The next challenge, that I've not even considered yet, is uploading the
images (if any) to this machine and . . . and . . . then what? I dunno.
I'll find out.

That's where the fun starts.

--
Tim C.