Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Howard R. Hansen who wrote (19520)	3/9/2001 2:48:39 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

The Olympus printer is almost too much of a good thing. The prints are better than ordinary commercial quality enlargements using conventional photo paper and developing. The price is a little steep for most people, but this type of printer, if it catches on, may drop in price, at least to the $500 range, which is about the upper limit for most people. The prints may be more permanent than most others because the printer automatically coats the paper with a clear plastic after the last dye is applied. The cost per print will be reduced considerably if the printer is used with a computer, where a series of smaller size prints can be made from a file containing several images. The photo store in Rochester, where I saw the printer in operation, estimates that the total cost for a single sheet of paper with either a full 8x10 image or a series of smaller images comes to about $2.60. Of course, if each of the images is adjusted for color balance, brightness, contrast, removal of red eye, and other enhancements, the prints will be better than anything one could get at any price from conventional printing services. Many people on this thread have played down the idea that the final print is where digital imaging really shows its superiority to conventional photography. They believe that the average photographer doesn't want to spend the time or pay high prices for printing equipment to be used with a computer. The idea that the average photographer would be satisfied with mere commercial grade photos that look like the ones they're used to getting from the one-hour developing stores is, IMHO, simply outdated. People who typically take more than 500 photos a year won't mind spending the higher initial costs for digital cameras and printers because they can recoup these costs in less than two years, compared with the cost for a good quality conventional camera, plus film, processing, and printing. Art Art