Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/07/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Digital vs. film cost
From: mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:08:23 -0400

Not only is it not pennies but dollars a frame but part of transparency
shooting is bracketing. Which means your covering yourself whenever you can
with lots of exposures of any semi critical subject out in the field
shooting city or land scapes if its worth getting its worth getting right
and you learn a lot about your materials in the processs. Also the best
"dupe" is the one make at the time in camera. So you are in effect backing
yourself up  holding your figure down.
Which is way on top of iso being the "fast" and pricey spread I shot color
neg way more than most my pro friends did. Another reason was I did a lot of
promo work in which color neg was the way to go and I did all my own
printing. And with color neg its more about  prints.  Slides are often the
end to themselves. Unless you're going magazine work or catalogs.

So its click once at iso 80o or 1600 color neg costing one third as much as
the pro slide film or click a bunch of times with the limited range high
priced slow speed spread.  It ends up costing a tenth as much.


Mark William Rabiner



> From: Geoff Hopkinson <hopsternew at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 08:51:19 +1000
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital vs film cost
> 
> The Pro transparency film that I used to use is especially expensive. I 
> just
> rechecked for you from a local shop with (good) E6 processing. It's got
> worse.
> 1x Provia 36 exposure including processsing ann astounding $AUD 37.50 +
> $15.50 processing. That's about $1.56 a frame in your pesos currently!
> How they justify tht $37.50 vs. BHPhoto prices is somewhat a mystery.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Geoff
> 
> *Australia, paying for the world's carbon sins, one tonne at a time**.*
> 
> 
> 
> On 19 July 2011 07:48, Montie Talbert <montoid at earthlink.net> wrote:
> 
>> $36 Bucks for a roll of slide film down under?
>> 
>> Montie
>> 
>> 
>>>> Someone forgot to figure in that digital allows you to shoot more when
>> wanted and try different things and redevelop your Raw files and change 
>> ISO
>> on the fly and the price of good transparency film ( > $1 a frame here) 
>> and
>> the need to digitise your film to do anything with it at home etc etc etc
>> etc. Put your hand on your heart and declare if you develop and print
>> everything you shoot on film anyone?
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Geoff
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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




Replies: Reply from imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser) ([Leica] Digital vs. film cost)
In reply to: Message from hopsternew at gmail.com (Geoff Hopkinson) ([Leica] Digital vs film cost)