Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/07/14

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

Subject: [Leica] Re: Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost
From: ericm at pobox.com (Eric)
Date: Wed Jul 14 17:50:27 2004
References: <r01050300-0921-B457DFFFD4FA11D8B686424F2B679C48@[66.239.168.212]> <BD1AB541.52CB%philippe.orlent@pandora.be>

Philippe:

>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.

Except you can't just figuring processing costs for the film and not include
processing costs for the digital files.  That's only a fair comparison for
the photographer currently developing and printing his own film.  If you
farm out film processing, you need to include the cost of doing the same
with digital.

--
Eric
http://canid.com/


Replies: Reply from bdcolen at earthlink.net (B. D. Colen) ([Leica] Re: Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost)
In reply to: Message from george at imagist.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost)
Message from philippe.orlent at pandora.be (Philippe Orlent) ([Leica] Reality Check re: Digital vs Film vs Cost)