Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/20

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

Subject: RE: [Leica] Leica and digital photography
From: "Austin Franklin" <>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:09:01 -0400

> > > I've saved enough on film to more
> > > than pay for my digital cameras.
> >
> >Hi Tina,
> >
> >How much have you spend on computer equipment and software?
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >Austin
> Austin -
> I would need those anyway because I'm selling stock as digital
> files that I
> sell by computer.  And all of my gallery prints are printed on my
> Epsons.  I know this wouldn't apply to the consumer guy that we were
> talking about, but there are very few professional photographers who can
> survive these days without the computer equipment and software that I
> have.

Hi Tina,

I understand, but it is an unfair comparison to not include those in the
overall cost of "going digital", and it is often overlooked...and the
oversight justified.

> Compared to setting up a professional darkroom and making prints
> that way, and making dupes of everything to send out as stock, digital is
> much cheaper.

Have you done a cost breakdown?  I don't believe it is cheaper as far as
actual cash outlay...but certainly as far as time goes, I agree, especially
if you are making multiple copies of the same image.

For digital printing, ink is expensive, as well as the the
printer, software etc.  I do believe the cost of going digital, at least for
equipment to get from image to print, is higher, and cost per print is
higher.  Both are true in my case.  Cost to save/store images is higher, but
it can be done that it does save time, and space, which I know for you is a
big plus.  Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't go back to chemical printing in a
second...but I really don't believe I'm saving any money here.



- --
To unsubscribe, see