Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/29

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

Subject: [Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals
From: nathan.wajsman at planet.nl (Nathan Wajsman)
Date: Sun May 29 03:41:07 2005
References: <4ee1def4ee6c10.4ee6c104ee1def@shaw.ca>

Greg,

It is meaningless to count the cost of the computer when tallying up the 
cost of digital imaging, unless you assume that the person had no 
computer before and bought one only to use for digital photography. I am 
pretty sure that this description applies to a very tiny minority of 
photographers. I think my case if far more typical: my only incremental 
computer equipment cost when I switched to digital capture was a 20 Euro 
card reader. I already had Photoshop and an inkjet printer, since I had 
been scanning my film for several years.

One can argue about quality of film vs. digital, but I do not believe 
that there can be any discussion about the economics of it for anyone 
shooting more than 1-2 rolls of film per week.

Nathan

GREG LORENZO wrote:


> I think your economics are a little slanted here. Without reference to the 
> cost of pc printers, paper, cards, etc. Not to mention the additional cost 
> of the digital camera -assuming you already owned a film camera prior to 
> purchase.
> 
> Meaningless may be a better description.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Greg 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 
> 

-- 
Nathan Wajsman
Almere, The Netherlands

General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com
Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com
Stock photography: http://www.alamy.com/search-results.asp?qt=wajsman
http://myloupe.com/home/found_photographer.php?photographer=507
Prints for sale: http://www.photodeluge.com



In reply to: Message from gregj.lorenzo at shaw.ca (GREG LORENZO) ([Leica] Re:Second thoughts about digitals)