[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
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: