[rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers
- From: Eric Goldstein <egoldste@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:12:26 -0500
Digital can be very cheap or very expensive or anywhere in between,
just like film. It depends upon what your requirements are and how
many options you want... I know digital shooters who function very
well with less than a thousand dollars in capital costs and produce
impressive large-scale prints with which they are very satisfied...
You do not need a dSLR, computer or printer to effectively shoot digital...
Eric Goldstein
--
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 11:03 AM, Marc James Small
<marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And how much were his conversion costs. How much did he pay for the digital
> camera? How much for the new computer? How much for the new printer? How
> much for the fancy inks and spiffy paper? And what about the need to
> upgrade every six months or so? Film is cheap and film processing is cheap.
> Digital is EXPENSIVE and really inconvenient.
>
> Marc
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
