Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2008/12/13
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Jayanand, You are right, I forgot the software. However, you do not need Photoshop--alternatives do exist. Indeed, the best alternative I can think of is from Adobe itself, namely Lightroom, which is a fraction of the cost of PS. That is all I use now. I have PS CS3 because I could get it cheaply with the educational discount (I had my son buy it) but I probably have not opened an image with it for several months. Certainly no photographer needs the complete Creative Suite unless s/ he is also a graphics designer or something like that, but then it is a different ball game altogether. Cheers, Nathan Nathan Wajsman Alicante, Spain http://www.frozenlight.eu http://www.greatpix.eu http://www.nathanfoto.com Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog On Dec 14, 2008, at 4:02 AM, Jayanand Govindaraj wrote: > Nathan, > You left out a very big and recurring expense - software. Adobe's > programs > dont come cheap - they are a monopoly and charge as such. I just > found out > that to upgrade from the CS3 suite to the CS4 suite is only US$770 - > the > cost of a very good digital SLR. > Cheers > Jayanand > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Nathan Wajsman > <photo@frozenlight.eu>wrote: > >> I am an amateur. I bought my E3 about 11 months ago, and in those >> 11 months >> I have shot the equivalent of about 20 rolls of film per month with >> it. Each >> roll would have cost an average of 12 EUR to buy and process, so >> the savings >> is 240 EUR per month or 2880 EUR per year--far more than I paid for >> the E3. >> >> The computer I have is an iMac which I bought earlier this year. >> But I >> would have bought this computer even if I were not taking pictures. >> I use it >> to surf, to e-mail, to work with Excel, Word, Powerpoint etc. So >> its cost >> was not incurred as a consequence of photography and so should not be >> counted. The only computer expense that is incremental are a couple >> of >> external hard drives, since photographs do indeed require lots of >> storage. >> But even then, and despite the fact that I have not earned one cent >> with my >> photos, I am still ahead of film, financially speaking. >> >> The M8 I just got will take a bit longer to pay for itself in film >> savings, >> but it will definitely have done so by the time the 2-year warranty >> is up. >> And my enjoyment of it is priceless. >> >> Nathan >> >> Nathan Wajsman >> Alicante, Spain >> http://www.frozenlight.eu >> http://www.greatpix.eu >> http://www.nathanfoto.com >> >> Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0 >> PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws >> Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog >> >> >> >> On Dec 13, 2008, at 4:13 PM, Harrison McClary wrote: >> >> These arguments I always find a little misleading. They leave out >> the >>> fact you should buy external drives for back up, and those in >>> redundancy. >>> You need a good fast computer or editing your photos will be >>> painful. You >>> need software to edit those photos. There is far more cost to >>> digital than >>> just the camera and all of that HAS to be considered also, IMHO. >>> >>> Alan Magayne-Roshak wrote: >>> >>>> "Alastair Firkin" <afirkin@afirkin.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> Of course if you get 500000 shots from your M8 it will have paid >>>> for >>>>> itself even if you are not a pro. Its got a guarantee so shoot >>>>> for a year >>>>>> and you will have saved quite a bit anyway. >>>>> >>>> >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> = >>>> =================================================================== >>>> I don't follow. If (an amateur) doesn't make money using an M8, >>>> how can >>>> it be said to have paid for itself? The money hasn't come back; >>>> maybe less >>>> will be spent in support than with film, but that doesn't seem to >>>> be the >>>> same thing as recovering the initial expense. >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> Alan Magayne-Roshak, Senior Photographer >>>> UPAA POY 1978 >>>> University Information Technology Services >>>> University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee >>>> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Alan+Magayne-Roshak/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Leica Users Group. >>>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more >>>> information >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Harrison McClary >>> Harrison McClary Photography >>> harrison@mcclary.net >>> http://www.mcclary.net >>> ImageStockSouth - Stock Photography >>> http://www.imagestocksouth.com >>> Tobacco Road: Personal Blog: >>> http://www.mcclary.net/blog >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leica Users Group. >>> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information