PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx writes: > Shoot film. It still cheaper unless you throw away most of your > shots. Digital takes a lot more processing and storage on hardrives > ( Even at $.50 per gig you still need large files to maintain > quality and two backup harddrive for each oriiginal data > harddrives.) For digital the cost is storage (and equipment), for film it's film and processing. If you shoot a lot, digital is a lot cheaper. 10k shots is a bit under 300 rolls. You can save money going to Wal*Mart, but at a pro lab it's nearly $15 to develop and contact or proof a roll, and the film itself costs around $5 (unless you're using cheap consumer film). So 300 rolls costs $6000 just in film and lab fees. More than that if you need scans done (or more of your time). $6000 will pay for a lot of hard drives and DVDs. So is 10k shots one year's work, or 5, for you? I'm an amateur, and find I'm somewhere in the middle. If you're a slow, careful, artistic landscape photographer (Ansel Adams type) 10k shots is probably a LOT of years. -- David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:dd-b@xxxxxxxx>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/> RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/> Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/> Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
