Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't mind the hours behind the screen. Not because I love being behind a computer, but because it enables me to create the images that I have in my head and that are impossible to make in one shot. But it's very true that looking at ektas on a light table to make a selection goes faster than clicking your way through image files. That's why I started asking for a (mid size) thumbnail printout or am making them myself. Amicalement, Philippe --- > From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> > Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:38:42 -0700 > To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> > Subject: Re: [Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost > > Philippe Orlent offered: >> No more lab, no more time losses, immediate results on the spot, and a >> quality equal to or higher than analog.<,, > > Philippe mon ami, > This is true. However, you left out the worst part about digital....... > > One now spends countless hours in front of the computer screen compared to > slide / negative selection on a light table where it takes mere minutes to > edit. > > The biggest complaint by stock photography colleagues at Masterfile is the > computer time, even though they say it's wonderful their film/lab costs of > $15 -$20,000 a year are eliminated, they now spend far more time in front > of > the screen and a great deal less shooting. > > So I suppose like anything there's good, bad and ugly to every new fangled > product. > > ted > > > > > > " <philippe.orlent@pandora.be> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 1:02 AM > Subject: Re: [Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost > > >>> From the review: >> >> suppose 10 rolls of 220 film a day costing about 15$ each everything >> included = 150$ >> suppose 15 days of work per month = 15 x 150 = 2,250$ >> so 16,990/2,250= 7,5 months >> so 29990/2250= 13,5 months >> >> So these backs pay themselves back in a relatively short period of time, > if >> you're a professional photographer. >> >> >> I'm afraid the end of the analog era is nearing. >> --- >> >>> From: George Lottermoser <george@imagist.com> >>> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:30:24 -0500 >>> To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost >>> >>> Feli di Giorgio7/13/04 >>> >>>> "The P20 carries a list price of USD $16,990. The P25 costs $29,990." >>> >>> And let us remember that these are "camera backs" no body, no shutter, > no >>> lens, no meter. Just the digital equivalent of film. >>> >>> Fond regards, >>> >>> G e o r g e L o t t e r m o s e r, imagist? >>> >>> <?>Peace<?> <?>Harmony<?> <?>Stewardship<?> >>> >>> Presenting effective messages in beautiful ways >>> since 1975 >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> web <www.imagist.com> >>> eMail george@imagist.com >>> voice 262 241 9375 >>> fax 262 241 9398 >>> Lotter Moser & Associates >>> 10050 N Port Washington Rd - Mequon, WI 53092 >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >