Maybe We Just Need Cheap CDs? >>
<< Test Driving A Wearable Computer
 tdicon 


Culture

by Mike Masnick

Thu, May 23rd 2002 2:12am





Digital Photography Changes Everything

from the quite-the-impact dept

A few months back I finally entered the 21st century and got a digital camera. It's a great replacement for taking snapshots, and I don't see any reason to ever go back to a regular snapshot camera. I never have to worry about buying and developing film, and I no longer have to deal with envelopes full of pictures I'll probably never look at again. The NY Times is now running an article looking at how digital photography is changing the way people take and view snapshots. While many people are jumping on the digital camera bandwagon (and doing things they never could have done with film cameras because of it), some people simply can't give up their 35mm cameras and their hard-copy glossy photos. I would imagine this is a generational issue that will go away over time.

3 Comments | Leave a Comment..


If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
 

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  

    No Subject Given

    identicon
    eman8, May 23rd, 2002 @ 4:32am

    I have both and I use both. At the moment, there is no way of geting the quality you can get from an optical camera in an affordable digital camera. You dont have the lens and attachements etc. Once they fix this (and I think it will be a while) you will see less use of film, but it won't go away. For instance - look at the disposable camera market. Making this digital is certainly possible, (and is probably more environmentally friendly) but can you make it cheap enough to do it? Loads of people use these for the sorts of things that I use my digital camera for : snaps.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  

    No Subject Given

    identicon
    steve snyder, May 23rd, 2002 @ 8:06am

    I recently bought a HP Photo printer for around $200. I've been absolutely amazed at the quality of prints on photo paper. With a good quality image (I would say anything 1 megapixel or higher) on photo paper it looks every bit as good as the pictures my wife gets with her Kodak snapshot camera.

    By my estimations, the cost of the photo paper and toner cartidges puts the cost at around half the price of film & developing. Plus you only pay for prints that you're sure you want unlike with a regular camera. Throw in the fact that you can do so much more with digital images--most importantly for me at least, is how much easier it is to organize & keep track of my pictures--things are pretty cool.

    I realize this doesn't factor in the cost of the printer or camera, but the printer has enough other uses anyway and I'm sure after a certain point, the camera would pay for itself in cost savings.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  

    I have gone digital

    identicon
    Lee, May 23rd, 2002 @ 8:55pm

    I have been using a digital camera exclusivly for three years, using it for business. Not just for web work, but several print jobs as well. It it 1.3 megapixel, high the time, I will probably upgrade next year, the cost per megapixel is coming down rapidly.

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>


Maybe We Just Need Cheap CDs? >>
<< Test Driving A Wearable Computer
 tdicon 

A word from our Sponsors...
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss

Powered by Postrank

From the Techdirt Archive...
A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This