[pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: "Dana H. Myers" <dana.myers@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 13:12:08 -0800
BILL WILLIAMS wrote:
> 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.
Before we gave our kids digital P&S cameras, they would
carry single-use cameras on family vacations. The cost of
the film, processing and printing added-up to about $10
for every 27 exposures. It was easy to spend $60 on
snapshots.
Now that they carry digital P&S cameras (with rechargeable
batteries, of course), the cost of vacation photography is
under $10 for the few dozen prints they make at Costco.
I've already recovered the initial cost of the cameras,
as well, and the kids use the bundled software without
complaint.
Dana
=============================================================================================================
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.
- Follow-Ups:
- [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: Edward C. Zimmermann
- References:
- [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: BILL WILLIAMS
Other related posts:
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- » [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: Edward C. Zimmermann
- [pure-silver] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: BILL WILLIAMS