At 07:58 AM 12/14/2002 +0900, you wrote: >me@myplace.to wrote/replied to: > >>>... for anyone who is really short on money - film is *MUCH* cheaper >> >>I don't think so. A 1GB microdrive costs less than twenty rolls of decent >>film with processing. I've shot over 3000 images (equal to about 80 rolls >>of film) on mine in the past two and a half months. Film would have been >>much much more expensive than the $220 USD 1GB IBM Microdrive. > >It's kind of different though when you can take photos 'free' rather >than with film where you'd like take way less. Depends on what you're >doing with those shots though. I figure most new digital photogs like >take thousands of test shots after getting their cameras, so it's >tough to compare to what they actually might have taken with film. The statement in question is... film is a cheaper storage media than microdrive. I think you might seem to be saying that free digital IS cheaper than cheap film or like something like that... like? Dave East Englewood ----------------
