Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/09/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]>Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 >From: Ted Grant <tedgrant@shaw.ca> >Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Video of M8 > >David Rodgers offered: >> But I also don't think digital is necessarily >>across the board cheaper/faster/easier than film. <<<< > >Hello David >That being the case would you please explain to those of us who shoot a >great deal of stock photography, some who saved last year $20,000 dollars by >shooting digital only? Simply by not purchasing a roll of film nor paid a >dime for processing and had all our stuff in moments? Just wondered? >thank you, >ted ................................................................................ His opinion might apply for people like me . I only have a digital ELPH (that I rarely use) and at the rate I'm shooting film, it will be years before I spend as much as it would take to buy a DSLR, lenses, and all the peripherals needed. [For my personal photography] I do mainly B&W and slides - I have a projector, and my darkroom was paid for three decades ago, so an expensive new system has no appeal. Nor does the archiving. I realize it would be different if I was self-employed or did freelance on the side, but I'm not, and I don't. Alan Dig.for Work/Film for Me Alan Magayne-Roshak Senior Photographer Photo Services Univ. of Wis.- Milwaukee Information & Media Technologies amr3@uwm.edu http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Alan+Magayne-Roshak/