Michael P. O'Connor

The Post gazette has a story about digital cameras today. I would like to pick it apart now.
First they have an example of you have a loved one you take a picture and then delete it since it is not perfect. Well alot of people are more likely to keep more pictures, since cost of devolopment is pennies per picture (for the electricity) And people are more likely to take more pictures. Here is a real life example from my life. I was at an event, I took my digital camra, and took alot of pictures, I would not have taken any pictures if I had a film camra, just not worth the cost to remember that event, not that important. I took a few of a friend not the greatest but they were ok (not blurry) so I kept them. Well saddly 3 months later this friend died of a Heart attack, I was able to make avalable to his family the pictures I took, it was a great joy to them (you could see it in there face) that there were more pictures of their loved one that they could have (I was able to e-mail the pictures to them on the spot, no wainting for a photo lab to duplicat them) So I have shown how that argument is false, because of the digital camra there is a better chance of more pictures of your loved ones existing then not.

2) People don’t print out as many pictures as they use to. So how is this bad??
3) Children need to see you have pictures of them to feel loved. OOOOK I would think if a parent spends time with their children it would not matter if one has a few or a lot of pictures around the house, but lets assume you need to have a lot of pictures of the children for their own good, well, you still can go down to CVS or another place that does photos, they now have computers that will read a digital media card and print the pictures for you, or you could buy a photo printer and you can spend maybe 30 minutes a month to print out the pictures you like best of your kids to put aruond the house for thier own good, but I still thing this is a argument that is baseless, it is time that is need not pictures (this is also mentioned in the articals)
4) they talked about how people have admited to droping camras and the like in toilet, yes, that happens and it might distroy the camra, if you use a memory stick the pictures on that stick have a strong chance of surviving the water. People are very likely to drop things, even a real film camra, and when that happens the film cover can pop open and distroy the whole roll of film. I would rather drop a digital camra and still be able to take the SD card out and get the pictures off of that (I still don’t want to drop the camra no mater what type it is)
So I would say finaly that the artical in the Post Gazette is just a bunch of people that can not compate with digital camra trying to use FUD tactics to scare people back into useing film so they don’t loss money.