Craig Latta wrote:

>> And although today's consumer digital imaging is attrocious, it is
>> growing faster than anything. Average image quality is getting worse
>> and worse, but the buying public doesn't know the difference.
> 
> That may be true, but I think it's important to note the other
> attributes which make digital imaging attractive (mostly having to do
> with convenience, some novel affordances also). Many photographers know
> the quality differences, but are motivated to make the tradeoff anyway.
> It seems similiar to the current debate over digital technology in
> comics (e.g., at scottmccloud.com).

Complaints about new imaging technology compromising quality came already
with Gutenberg's device. (Printed books were indeed crude compared to the
previous generation of hand-copied manuscripts, which rich people continued
to prefer for some time.)

Ever since, new printing tech has sometimes lowered quality, sometimes it
has improved it. This has happened many many times.

Just to put things in a little perspective.

Henrik