On Fri, 17 Jan 2003 03:21:45 -0800 (PST), you wrote: >I think you forgot some of the other costs associated >with digital in your example. What about the cost of >the printer itself? The paper & ink supplies? And >most important, the time involved to "do it yourself"?
Who needs a printer when re-prints are so cheap? Hobbyists have high-end printers, but that's a concious decision, not something for a cost comparison. I personally quit spending money on home printers and prints a long time ago. A good photo printer is not cost effective for the occasional 8x10 or 11x14 that interest me. Time? Lordy, how many hours have I spend sleeving prints into albums, finding shelf space for the albums, looking for the right album with the right print so I could find the neg and make and enlargement, then don't forget the hassle of all the boxes of photo albums each time I moved... oh yeah and now I remeber the days and days sitting at the computer as the scanner grinds away a the batch of a hundred rolls I shot on my last photo vacation... grrrr. NO thanks, I'm not going back to film except for an occasional special purpose shoot. I guarantee I can download 300 photos from the CF card, which automatically arranges a folder and provides an appropriate prefix for the image file names, sort through the bunch and discard the worst and tag the best, then batch up a little web page and CD with the keepers - all in less time that it takes me to stick a couple of rolls of prints into an album. -- John Mustarde www.photolin.com
