Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2014/01/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jan 11, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Doug Herr wrote: > The operating cost of a digital camera and its basic processing is > negligible no matter how much or how little it's used. It output is > qualitatively not the same as the film camera's output. These discussions really do have too many different levels of debatability. I do delight in the fact that film and processing costs have evaporated with digital. And lament that digital cameras depreciate; while also delighting that M9s are available for $3300. And lament that I can still not afford a digital back for my Hasselblad Yet the cost of computers, software and storage do also need mention and consideration. In the past 6 months I've spent nearly $700 in computer repair/maintenance/upgrade; My desktop unit awaits similar work; for lack of funds. Another few hundred went to replace failing external hard drives. And I'm running a couple versions behind in Lightroom, Photoshop and OS. So what does that mean in film and processing - 70 - 90 rolls (depending on who's processing) a few hundred sheets of 4x5, a hundred sheets of 8x10 - I'm guessing - it's been too long. Yet in contrast - my enlargers never required constant upgrading expenses. They perform today in exactly the same way they performed 30 years ago. Bottom line - photography has always been an expensive pursuit; whether as a profession or as a hobby. or not - as you see fit. One can still make a pinhole camera and expose various self made light sensitive emulsions. or simply make a camera obscura and trace the scene george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist