Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On 13/12/2008, at 21:28, Seth Rosner wrote: > Luis, the difference isn't complicated: computers do not require > replenishment, at most an insignificant amount of electric power; > film does. You didn't understand my statement. I'm not arguing in favour -or against- of this or that, there is no matter if the cost is high or low, in the end a cost is a cost, and should be counted. With digital photography people tends to skip expenses hiding themselves behind other uses of the stuff, when in fact you - or me for the case - wouldn't updated the computer, the software, the printer, or whatever else we did if we weren't in need of processing such stuff, to do not tell that the comparaison with shooting film about savings in processing is faux for those who do not make a living out of photography, just because most of us never shot such amount of pictures/day never ever before, and well, if you ask me most of them - mines first- are just useless crap. Digital for amateurs is wondeful as long as the amateur likes it, but there is no need to exceed the facts. I feel better, to hell with photography, art, women, and all E. Weston, 1924 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- http://luis.imaginarymagnitude.net/