[rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers
- From: Marc James Small <marcsmall@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:17:52 -0500
At 11:56 AM 1/14/2009, jon.stanton@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>Marc. He swapped a couple of contax cameras for a d 200 and lenses
>cost was neglelbe
Well, no. Come over to the Leica Users' Group
and learn about the package cost from the digital nuts there.
To the cost of the camera and lenses, you have to add:
New dedicated computer
New software (Photoshop now costs what, $650?)
High-grade printer
Special inks (about $500 for a set which lasts about a month)
Special paper (the best stuff runs around $8 a sheet)
I'm only interested in doing the very best that
can be done. I already own a grand set of Leica
and Zeiss Ikon and Rolleiflex gear and a full
darkroom set-up, for which I effectively have
paid nothing through years of judicious buying
and selling. (Example: I picked up a lot which
included some Hasselblad 500 stuff and a
Rolleiflex 2.8F 12/24 for $50. I took out the
darkroom stuff, which I wanted, sold the
Hasselblad stuff for $400, had Harry overhaul the
2.8F for $250, and then swapped that for a
2.8GX. So, in the end, my GX cost me nothing. I
once paid $5 for a Leica IIIcK and sold it for $2000 a week later.)
I realize that me and thee probably can never see
the difference between "good" in photo quality
and "best", but I want to know that my pictures
are the very best I can produce. To do the same
with digital would cost me around $10,000 in new
gear and software, plus the need to upgrade every
six months or so. As the late, and lamented,
Herb Caen would have said, "Fuggadaboutit".
Sure, I have a Rollei digital P&S which I use on
occasion. A friend who runs a bookshop in
Minnestoa dedicated to nautical works,
particularly the works of Patrick O'Brian, sent
me an "Aubry/Maturin 2008" bumper sticker and
asked me to send him a picture of it on my
car. I taped the sticker over my McCain/Palin
sticker and took a picture with the Rollei P&S
and sent it to him. And then I took the bumper
sticker off, carefully, as it will be saleable in
four or eight years, and sent John the picture by
e-mail. But that was not anything else than
documentary work, and digital is sufficient for that.
And I take very few pictures now. If I were a
pro doing thousands of shots a day, sure, it
would be worth it to invest in high-end digital
stuff, and I could write the cost of Photoshop
off my taxes. I am just not in that category. I
already own what I need and the cost of film and
processing and chemistry is quite low: I
probably spend less than $250 a year on this.
I birdwatch with Zeiss binoculars or with a Leitz
APO-Televid 77. I star-gaze with a Questar. I
simply cannot abide junk optics such as cheap
Oriental binoculars. (Yes, there are high-end
Japanese and Chinese optics, but these cost as
much as does the Zeiss or Leica glass.)
When you absolutely, positively, want the very best, stick with film.
Marc
msmall@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Cha robh bàs fir gun ghràs fir!
---
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:
