On Saturday, April 2, 2005, at 02:12 AM, Nick Roberts wrote: > Just taking 35mm slide film, my usage has been at about 150 rolls a=20 > year for quite a few years. Wow. I shoot maybe 50 rolls of slide film (all told) in a year. On each=20 individual camera, maybe a dozen. Plus maybe 50 4x5 slides. I shoot a lot more B&W, but that's cheap, at least as regards=20 developing, and doesn't break the bank. But I am content if I get just two or three excellent prints (i.e.,=20 good enough to show off even to strangers) in a year, plus maybe twenty=20= or thirty so-so prints (i.e., good enough to show off to family and=20 friends only). The rest of my shots I just discard. Or at any rate,=20 never show to anyone. > This has been very largely replaced by digital. My 35mm B&W stuff=20 > continues as before, as does the medium format stuff. It was costing=20= > me about =A37.50 for film and processing of Velvia/Provia, and I paid=20= > just under =A31000 for the 10D - in the 16 months I have owned it, I=20= > have shot about 12 rolls of slide film, a reduction of just about 150=20= > rolls. Oh yes, I can see how this would be the case! > Oh, and I've actually taken MORE pictures than before, of course. Yes, I understand that using a digital camera encourages one to do that. > Mind you, the expense doesn't end with the camera purchase - it really=20= > begins there. Of course. My prints all cost upwards of $20 (CAN) each, the most=20 expensive (yet) having cost me $167 (CAN). And for that last one, the=20 frame is going to cost over $600 (CAN)! Plus I intend to have some Platinum prints made by an outfit in Maine=20 (<http://www.photographictraditions.com/>) from my B&W Rollei negs, and=20= those will cost me, with the internegatives, over $300 (CAN) each. But THAT cost would exist with digital too, so I don't count it as any=20= advantage for the digital process. Cheers.