Hi Bruce ... You've brought up an interesting point that I was mulling over while making a few photos earlier.
There's this discussion going on about the "cost" of working with film v working with digital, and, depending on what one wants to throw into the argument (buying a scanner, a printer, film cost v memory card cost, the cost of the camera/lenses, and so on - hell, if y'wanna get fancy, one can include the time value of money, amortizing the cost over the useful life of the equipment, recovering depreciation, resale value, ad nauseum), and it seems to me that the financial aspect of one format over the other is of no consequence from the standpoint of preference unless one is using the gear to generate income. Otherwise photography is a hobby that's generally paid for with discretionary income, so what difference does it make if digi or film costs more. The hobbyist will buy what s/he prefers, for whatever reason s/he prefers, and that's the end of it. When was the last time you heard a discussion about 35mm v MedF v LF with the cost being an argument? kind regards, shel Bruce Dayton wrote: > Hello Shel, > > Actually, I already had 2-256MB cards from other digi's. So I didn't > even buy them. They have already logged at least 1000 pictures. I > did buy a 512MB card, though. My point was that it doesn't take long > at all to recoup the cost of the card. > > It should be pointed out that I already have > computer/printer/software for other uses so that was not a necessary > cost for me. > > And yes, Medium Format is what I have been using. It is more costly > per frame to shoot. In fact, pretty much I don't shoot it unless > someone is paying me to. Doesn't give me much practice or > experimentation.
