I agree with you. And it's not just older people. It's people in their late thirties, or forties, or fifties, who just want, say, pictures for the Christmas card or pictures of the kid's concert. They cannot master these very complicated cameras: can't decipher the manual, can't figure out how to turn off the pop-up flash, can't turn out a decent print because the white balance is always off. Seriously, they are the first people to run and buy the latest thing, they are the reason photo processing stores are closing in droves, but they really don't like the results and wish for something simpler. Many bemoan how much easier it was in the film days. Without of course being willing to go back. They like the gadgets, but don't like the pictures. They don't print either; just load it onto their computers.
Apple really needs to make a digital camera for most people. They'd make a fortune. Another fortune.
Or Kodak or someone else needs to grow a brain and do something to make film and processing available and cool again. That would of course be my preference.
-Laura
You got that right, Laura. There is certainly much room to make a bold move and create/re-create a viable market. So many people waste time debating the quality between digital vs film, when in reality that is a marginal issue at best, at least for the masses. It's all about simplicity of use and convenience, which incidentally is what makes Apple so wildly successful (among other things obviously). Kodak and Ilford should probably get behind young entrepreneurs who can build businesses around film, smaller and very focused labs which can promote at a local level, etc. I know I've said this numerous times, but the hybrid workflow is a card that should be played as the happy medium to resurrect things a bit. Kodak understands that, as they know well that most of the film they sell today gets scanned, but they don't go far enough in the promotion/advertising department.
Max