Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost
From: bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen)
Date: Wed Jul 14 18:31:30 2004

Huh? You have to figure the cost of something for which you don't have a
cost?

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+bdcolen=earthlink.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of
Eric
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 8:50 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: [Leica] Re: Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost


Philippe:

>suppose 10 rolls of 220 film a day costing about 15$ each everything 
>included = 150$ suppose 15 days of work per month = 15 x 150 = 2,250$
>so 16,990/2,250= 7,5 months
>so 29990/2250= 13,5 months

>So these backs pay themselves back in a relatively short period of 
>time, if you're a professional photographer.

Except you can't just figuring processing costs for the film and not
include processing costs for the digital files.  That's only a fair
comparison for the photographer currently developing and printing his
own film.  If you farm out film processing, you need to include the cost
of doing the same with digital.

--
Eric
http://canid.com/

_______________________________________________
Leica Users Group.
See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information


Replies: Reply from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Film image- might have been shot with a Leica M!)
Reply from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] Re: Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost)
In reply to: Message from ericm at pobox.com (Eric) ([Leica] Re: Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost)