[pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: BILL WILLIAMS <krbill_10@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:00:39 -0800 (PST)
My opinion, and from what I can determine for myself,
is that both the digital point and shoot owners and
the digital SLR owners have spent far more money on
purchase, operation, BATTERIES, and UPGRADES of
digital cameras, software, and support systems in a
couple or so years than I will on film, chemicals, and
paper in the next 15 or 20 years. And I am a healthy
film, chemical, and paper consumer(film cameras and
lens seem to be lasting forever). So, I don't think a
statment about digital being less costly to shoot than
film is a factual statement, but instead a marketing
statement from the digital manufacturers to lure
purchasers in much the same way as the pied piper
lured the rodents to doom.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
=============================================================================================================
To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,)
and unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
