Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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