Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Assume you shoot a wedding a week - Assume you were paying an absolute minimum of $300 per wedding for film and processing - and that assumes black and white only. That is $15,600 per year that you are SAVING by going digital. So that means you have either increased your take by $15,600 per year, or, if you're smart, you'll use that money to update and replace and add to your equipment as you need to - and want to ;-) - without ever again having to dip into what you have always figured what your "profit" to pay for equipment. From a financial standpoint, making the switch is a non-brainer. So from a pro's standpoint, it all comes down to whether digital can produce the quality you and your clients demand. B. D. Still shooting film. ;-) - ----- Original Message ----- From: Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 4:44 PM Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica and digital photography > At 04:01 PM 5/20/02 -0400, you wrote: > > >Face it, despite what someone suggested, digital saves money. You can argue > >all you want about the quality, but no one who has any idea what so ever > >what they're talking about will contend that digital is more expensive than > >film. > > > >B. D. > > > And does he realize that he will never have to buy film again? That little > memory card can be used over and over. I've saved enough on film to more > than pay for my digital cameras. > > Tina > > > Tina Manley, ASMP > http://www.tinamanley.com > > images available from: > http://www.pdiphotos.com > http://www.mira.com > http://www.agpix.com > http://www.newscom.com > > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html