[rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers
- From: "Peter K." <peterk727@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:39:56 -0800
Austin,
Look all I did was offer an opinion with some numbers. You can look at
things several ways and crunch numbers like you want. I have not seen many
places that do 35mm film development only for $2-3. It could be cost
effective. But now you have to add in scanning and a scanner. And the photos
do not magically organize themselves whether you have them in print or scans
of negatives. So your $12 an hour comment is meaningless. No matter how you
try there are still 10K images from film or digital to organize. And no way
around it, so for me it equals out. Plus if I am shooting an event, I do not
have to change rolls. Think about it. The bride walks down the aisle. Uh-oh.
I am on frame 35. But with digital, I have thousands of available shots.
Sure I could have a second camera but again then you would have a limited #
of shots with film. Not with digital and a decent size memory card. And I
can take 3000 shots and throw away 2000 and have 1000 great shots and guess
what, it cost me nothing but the time to look at them. A big benefit for a
wedding photographer. I can shoot 3-5 shots of a group, if someone closes
there eyes in one I go to the next where they are open.
Austin, somehow I knew you would want to argue this. Not sure why you always
do this but I am not looking to start a long thread here. So let's just say,
different strokes for different folks. You like film, great. Others like
digital. Let's leave it alone.
Respond all you want but I will not answer because it will only lead to more
posts.
Peter K
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 1:45 PM, austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx <
austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> > So if we take a roll of 36 exp and figure $10 for processing
>
> Simply develop only is a LOT cheaper, like $2-$3.
>
> > ...still a $2100 savings over processing.
>
> Amount of time to deal with (copy, organize, Photoshop, print etc.) 10,000
> digital images...worth far more than $2100. Unless you are unemployed, or
> make just above $12/hour, or simply like spending your spare time dealing
> with 10,000 digital images.
>
> In reality, Peter, you're not including a LOT of expenses that, for some
> strange reason, digital justifiers tend to handily leave out in order to
> "make their case" for digital offering a "savings" over film. It does for
> some, no doubt, but for most people, it's just not the case.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
>
--
Peter K
Ó¿Õ¬
Other related posts:
