I have to agree with Herb on this. I personally have no problem turning in a partially shot roll, but my wife would have fits. She doesn't want to waste a single shot on film. She'll hold that roll until the next occasion even if it will be awhile and there are only a couple of shots left. Penny wise and pound foolish. One of her biggest attractions to the digital camera is that she doesn't care how many shots she takes. When using the film camera she might as well be opening the cash register for each shutter release. On digital, she doesn't even think about it. Since I am there to weed out all the duds, she is very happy. She'll shoot 50-100 shots of an event on the digital where she would have shot only 5-10 on film. We may only get 5-10 keepers from the digital, but she has more fun taking them.
Bruce Thursday, December 19, 2002, 3:09:05 PM, you wrote: HC> Message text written by INTERNET:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>There isn't that cost advantage in reality, because the cost per HC> print of digital (at least in my market) is enough higher that a HC> film can be half used, taken in and processed, and will likely HC> cost less than getting the digital equivalent printed. HC> William Robb< HC> people aren't thinking about cost. they are thinking it's not the end of HC> the roll. that's waste of film. HC> Herb....
