I don't disagree about the value of digital - in fact I was one of the 'others' who noted this!
I was just staggered at how much you are paying! Provia for me is £3 per film. Process/Mount by Fuji is £4 - could get cheaper but I am more than happy with them. 3 of the lot for £20. Neg film works out about the same - film is about £2 and printing is about £5. This is where digital cant match the costs because if you printed 37 digital shots it would cost you a lot more. Of course not all would be worth printing, but even if you throw 10 prints away digital is still no cheaper than film on an ongoing basis never mind recouping the up front cost of the kit. When I am taking family/friends photos I would say 75% are keepers which I would want printed so digital cant match that on cost. However, when I am taking more artistic stuff like landscapes etc (which is my passion) I DO get a lot more wastage on film and digital WOULD pay for itself here eventually. But then I am using slide for this previously so cost is not my main driving factor here. If you want printed output you cant beat neg film for value - even over a loooong period of time. > -----Original Message----- > From: John Francis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The last time I was back in the UK I found that, much to my > surprise, many 35mm roll film costs (and, often, prices for > developing services) were rather lower than in the USA. Out > here Provia-100F costs $4:50 or so for a single roll (and > over twice that if you want the higher speed of 400F). > Process and mount from anywhere that I trust can be anything > from $10-$13 [quantity 1]. > > I'm not even sure I could find a much better deal; most of > the cheap bulk processors don't even touch slide film (not > that I'd let them; I've worked in one of those places - if I > wanted my slides scratched I'd do it myself). I can get > $7:50 - $8:00 per roll if I look around. But then I've got to > add in shipping costs , which gets me back up over > $10:00/roll. And in any case I much prefer to deal with in- > house processors; not only is there rather less chance of the > film getting lost in the mail, it's a lot easier to explain > just what you are not happy about when you're talking to a > live human being across a counter, and can *show* them the problem. > > Even at $10/roll, though, you only need to use one roll a > week for a *ist-D to pay for itself in three years. And, as > others have noted, you end up shooting a lot more with > digital anyway because the incremental cost is nil; you don't > need to end up with too many shots you would otherwise have > passed by before you are convinced that the outlay on the > digital was worth it.
