[rollei_list] Re: age old digital vs film debate...again...was RE: OT Ancient Computers
- From: "austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx" <austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 08:10:45 -0500
Hi Gene,
> On reflection, there ARE a lot of ways in which digital cameras have
> become superior to film cameras.
There are *some*, but I would not say a *lot*...
> Convenience and operating cost are 2.
Convenience I agree with to a certain extent. But it is hardly convenient
to manage and archive digital images.
Operating cost I also disagree with as a general statement. For some who
shoot a LOT, there is a cost reduction of sorts... But, people tend to not
include the initial cost of the camera is typically higher, the cost of the
electronics (computer, software, printer, ink, paper, batteries, storage
media), cost of depreciation of the equipment, cost of storing and
archiving. So, if you add in *all* the real costs, it is by no means
cheaper.
Regards,
Austin
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com ? What can On Demand Business Solutions do for you?
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/SharePoint
---
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:
