"BoodieMan" <iso50@lycos.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1a23502889db1abb9896a3@news-server.new.rr.com...

> In article <20031117222953.28390.00000440@mb-m14.aol.com>, twk53@aol.com

> says...

> > I noticed that this month's National Geographic has a layout on Flying. In the

> > "Behind the Scene" section, the editors explain that this article is the first

> > run that used digital photographs because they had the opportunity to

> > photograph a B-2 bomber but, because of the deadline, didn't have time to

> > process film. Thus, the decision to use digital for the first time.

> >

> > How great an effect may the notion of As National Geographic goes so goes

> > photography have on demand and, eventually, supply of film cameras and film?

> >

> > There is a lot of chatter about film vs. digital in the NG. But when a

> > publication as prestigeous as the Geographic goes digital, what then?

> >

> > Just wondering what you think.

> NG uses slide film, not negative, so its a little different. Frankly, I

> don't see why they haven't gone digital before.

They have - remember the NG "putting-the-pyramids-closer-together"

scandal a ways back...? ;-)