Re: [APML] Film vs Digital - is film really dead?

[Matt BenDaniel <matt@starmatt.com>]

What motivates the magazines is no mystery to me. They have to sell lots of ad space every month.

Our society is geared toward "progress". The vast majority of people will dump a lot more money on "state-of-the-art" than they will on "old" technology. For example, the new astro film camera by Taurus will sell 1% (by $) of what SBIG does this year, right? Which company can afford to buy more advertising?

The workflow of digital cameras much better suits the fast pace of business today. Even though there will be consumers of film like us for many years, companies like Kodak are moving toward digital in a big way. Again, buyers are willing to dump a whole lot more on digital than they are on film right now, and the trend will continue to favor digital.

The editors of magazines are inevitably biased by these business trends. Even though film might be the most enjoyable and productive medium for new astrophotographers, most of the advertisers don't want to see that said in print. It's a positive feedback process. It's plain fact today that we see many more newbie astrophotographers succeeding with CCD than we do with film. These newbies have been swayed by the advertising. The editors cite this trend as inherent superiority of digital media.
--
Matt BenDaniel
matt@starmatt.com
http://starmatt.com


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>