Re: [Leica] Re: Anyone want to help me spend some money on a digital darkroom?

["Michael E. Berube" <MEB@GoodPhotos.com>]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2004 12:52:11 -0800 (PST), John Collier quoth unto the boundless Ether...
>This whole exercise goes a long way to illustrate just how expensive
>digital is. For the average family that shoots under twenty rolls a
>year, film makes much more economic sense. I can see how the reduced
>film and processing costs can save a bundle for pros but the case is
>less clear for amateurs -- depending on how much they shoot and the
>type of desired image output.

I respectfully disagree. Digital makes more sense for the infrequent happy snapper as much as the working pro. It only doesn't make sense for the advanced hobbiest who really enjoys his own darkroom work. Here is why it works for happy snappers:

Film option:
Cost of a Nikon N55 or Canon Rebel K2 ~$300.
Cost of a roll of 24 exp print film ~$4.99
D&P for one 24 exp roll at 4X6 ~$10
Of the 24 exposures printed, the average amateur MAY like 4 prints. MAYBE. 
That's $3.75 per RA4 print. 98% NEVER print larger than 4X6.

Digital option.
Cost of Nikon Coolpix 2100 or Canon Powershot A60 ~$199
Cost to print from a Fuji Aladdin kiosk attached to a Frontier directly from the CF Card ~$0.50 per print. (in some places ~$0.29 per print.)
Burn all the images to "digital negatives" on a CDR ~$6.00

Every print is previewed in camera and again at the kiosk before any money has to be spent on it. Even if the client drops of the card to have it completely printed (1-4X6 each) they should have culled the bad from the good before hand. Add to that the ability to upload the images and share them without printing (if one even has a computer) and not having to worry about Xrays nuking your vacation snaps before you get to see them, you get that much better value. 

Cost to benefit for the amateur is in total favour of digital. 
Carpe Luminem,
Michael Eric Berube
GoodPhotos.com

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html