>> In this case he literally *IS* saving, because every time he takes 36 >> digital pictures he's paying nothing instead of paying $20. >> > I'm not sure he is paying nothing. If he wants them printed, and most of us > do, he's only saving the cost of film not the cost of developing and > printing. If he does not want them printed then he would not have the film > printed either. That reduces the total cost of print developing down > significantly.
Aww, man, y'all are hopeless. Here I am trying to help enable you to look seriously at the upcoming Pentax digital SLR, Pentax's _MOST SIGNIFICANT NEW PRODUCT SINCE THE AF 645_, maybe more so, and all you do is fight me. <g> The whole point of digital is that you DON'T have to pay for prints of every shot. Just the ones you want. That's supposed to be a GOOD thing. Who in the heck uses prints of all 36 shots on every roll? If you do, you either need to shoot more or edit more is all I can say. Even Cartier-Bresson only used one shot every few rolls. Smiling, --Ze Masked Enabler
