Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/11/07
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Years back a client lost one transparency from an assignment. Routine reimbursement on something such as that was $1500. Now lets see.....600 rolls times 36x1500. I think I'll buy an island. :-) Point is film costs, processing, travel, etc. is always covered by clients. Now there is certainly no doubt digital is the way to go if....You're working on a shoot with clients,models, art directors and child-star moms breathing down your neck. Other than that, when it's scanned and transmitted who cares where it came from? I do not wish to sound anti-digital.It's a great new field and a lot of fun. I do think for images displayed on monitor the M8 might be overkill. Last time I checked 96 dpi was still max screen display. That certainly could have changed but maybe not. As far as getting better by shooting that isn't always true. Learning by one's successes and failures can be done with a view camera. If it were just a question of blasting away we'd all be an Ansel Adams by now. Most importantly though, to each his or her own. /*God bless democracy and free choice. */There is one consideration that came to mind. Many times photojournalist encounter situations with less than cooperative subjects. Think anyone might invent a small device capable of scrambling digital imaging? I'll bet I could give Mel Gibson a call for some financing on that. Walt Frank Filippone wrote: >On the financial picture of film vs digital: 100% agreed with Ted. And to >the point about shooting sports, digital is the way to >go, IMO. > >$5K is the equivalent of...... 600 rolls of 36 exposure film...... >Probably a couple or 3 of years of shooting if you have a couple >of kids doing 2-3 sports a year each. Certainly can be justified if you >do this type of shooting, even as an amateur. >200 speed Fuji print film @$2 a roll >Costco processing at $6 a roll > >The choice of brand is probably more dependent on what you had before you >decided to go digital... Brand L, N, or C. Lenses that >are useable on both film and digital camera is the cheapest solution ( you >already have these), but new innovations can change that >equation. > >One reason to go digital.... if you shoot more you will get better at your >craft. Shooting digital allows you to shoot lots, >without regard to cost. You will shoot more. The instant feedback ( >chimping) is also an improvement issue. > >There are very valid reasons to go digital. RF or SLR. There are also >emotional reasons to go digital.. I want it!..... >But you still need the cash to start.....and an upfront investment of >several thousand dollars is scary.... > >Frank Filippone >red735i@earthlink.net > > > >But if nothing else, digital certainly for a heavy duty shooter of film, >digital is the most economical way to go regardless of the extra gear, >computer, printer etc. In the end one can actually save money in the long >run. > >Obviously for the one or two roll a week or month user it's hardly worth >the >digital cost. > >ted > > > >_______________________________________________ >Leica Users Group. >See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > >