Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/20
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]BD, What convincing? Let me break up the fight between you two identities. Do both, digital and film. I find that digital is great for snapping at family outings and as a back up, for then quick snaps. I wouldn't take digital on a European vacation where the shots would be very dear to me. Sam Krneta - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of B. D. Colen Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 4:24 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica and digital photography Come on, Austin - I'm not going to get in an argument with you, because I know I can't possibly win ;-)....But....I suppose we're assuming that one already has a computer... But let's see, film is how much per roll, assuming one is shooting color negative - or slide? And processing is how much per roll? And once one goes digital one presumably never again has to buy film or pay for processing? I know that I pay about $2 per roll for gray market tri-x, and pay $8 per roll for processing....so if I shoot 25 rolls, that's $250 per job. Which means that if I was shooting a job a week, which I'm not, in my first year I could set up a terrific digital darkroom, with all the redundency one could possibly want, and enough storage media to carry me for years to come....and then the next year I could start replacing digital equipment.....all out of my film and processing money.... Now, if only I can convince myself to sell my Leica equipment to finance the purchase of the digital equipment.....but so far my digital side hasn't managed to convince my analogue side...;-) B. D. - ----- Original Message ----- From: Austin Franklin <darkroom@ix.netcom.com> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:12 PM Subject: RE: [Leica] Leica and digital photography > > 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. > > Hum. Well, what about the cost of storing the digital images (and you do > need multiple copies BTW)? They can be burned to CD, and you can get 500 or > so per CD I'd guess, but you do need to have a computer with a CD > writer...and that doesn't come free. It isn't that expensive, but it sure > does enter into the equation. Storing film is cheap, put it in a box...but > there really, at least in my book, isn't a clear winner as far as cost goe s, > and I'm hard pressed to accept a blanket statement that digital is cheaper, > since I know for me, it hasn't been...but then, I probably don't have any > idea what so ever what I'm talking about ;-) > > Austin > > -- > 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 - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html