ladies and gentlemen,
i know i haven't been on this list for very long, nor do i have the professional background that many of you do...however, this is the umpteenth digital argument i've seen and the points haven't changed a bit...neither side is right, and neither is wrong...perhaps those who stick to film will waste more money, or get forced into digital and become bitter...perhaps those who go digital will lose their sense of truth and legitimacy...i really don't give a shit either way...i like to take pictures...as an educator, i enjoy learning and new knowledge (much of the reason i'm on this list)...i'm learning new things everyday about this art and loving life...perhaps those that have the time to argue, and take every chance they get to do so, have stopped learning or don't really want to listen anymore...
just a thought
"James B. Davis" <jbdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"James B. Davis" <jbdavis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:07:52 +0200 (CEST), Qkanowrote/replied to:
>Better in some ways,
>OK, better in many ways.
>For sure not better in all ways - there still is no free lunch!
Initial cost is indeed a factor. But I sure save in film and
processing. But the big saver for me is the travel to film store to
drop off, travel to pick up, day after day. Then there's the scanning
and diddling is way reduced. I'm free to take photos more which is
what I really like too!
Take the price of a good scanner off a DSLR and you don't have to
shoot much to start saving money on film and processing. Provia 100F
is about $12 US here, processing brings a roll of 36 up to over $20
US. It really adds up.
I know, we've been here before, but some still aren't getting with the
picture :-)
--
Jim Davis, Nature Photography
http://jimdavis.oberro.com/
Standard Poodles for fun
BMW motorcycle for pleasure
"The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds.
The pessimist fears it's true" - J Robert Oppenheimer
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.