you stated below that the big advantage of a digicam was the control available only darkroom users. Scanning film gives same exact control and you dont need a darkroom.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 10:04 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: An observation re Pentax for sale > > Um, sorry to inform you but film can be scanned and > then digitally processed the same way as a digital original. Sorry to inform you that we know that - some of us have been doing exactly that for the last five years or more. But it's completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It doesn't save you anything on film costs, and you have to pay for the scanner; until recently these cost nearly as much as the *ist-D. As such, it's unlikely that anything involving scanning film is going to be a serious contender for a low-cost setup. > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > J.C. O'Connell mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jcoconnell.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 27, 2003 3:54 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: An observation re Pentax for sale > > > > > > If you're happy with your digital camera, great! Just don't keep saying > the > > pictures are free. > > Noone has said that. They have said "film is free", though - those > experimental shots to try different techniques don't cost anything. > > It's also a lot cheaper to produce anything larger than a 6x4 print > yourself at home than it is to pay someone else to do it. An 8x10 > from Wolfe Camera costs around $5. For $1.50 in consumables I can > produce an 8x10 with far better colour balance than anything from > Wolfe, cropped exactly how I want it. Sure, I have to pay for the > printer, too. But even at $3.50 a print that doesn't take too long. > And don't even look at the cost of one-off prints from a pro lab. > > In my case I expect the *ist-D to pay for itself in less than two > years, based solely on the cost of film and processing. But the > big benefit, for most users, isn't the cost - it's the fact that > anyone with a computer now has access to the flexibility and > control over the process that was previously only available to > the very few people who set up their own photographic darkroom. > > If you are happy with your film camera, and 5c 6x4 prints from > the minilab at your local discount warehouse, great! But ... >
