[pure-silver] Re: [lens] Re: Film vs Digital- was: Amusing Kodak commercial
- From: "tOM Trottier" <tOM@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 12:37:29 -0400
On Saturday, December 30, 2006 at 13:00,
BILL WILLIAMS <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrot
> 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.
I don't think it's about cost so much - though each digital pic is essentially
free after capital costs.
It's about communication - people can send their pics by email to friends.
And control - edit, crop, enlarge, on a computer you already have.
tOM
--
tOM Trottier, Ottawa, Canada
758 Albert St, Ottawa ON Canada K1R 7V8
+1 613 231-6115 N45.41235 W75.71345
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ottawa-photo-clubs
"The moment one gives close attention to anything,
even a blade of grass, it becomes a mysterious,
awesome, indescribably magnificent world in itself "
-- Henry Miller, 1891-1980
=============================================================================================================
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:
