I find it interesting that people extoll the virtues of digital being cheaper,
then tell us how many more shots they have done and don't see the paradox.
I don't do any differently with regards to printing with my digital cameras than I did with my film cameras. Over the years, I have become adept at reading negatives, either color or B&W, and only print about 5-10%, others as needed. With digital cameras, I look at my exposures on the computer screen rather than through a loupe on the light table ... It's a somewhat more comfortable experience.
For me, the advantage of working with a full digital process is that I have more control over every aspect of my photography, from taking to print. And, since I don't have to buy film or process it, there is a net savings at my usual volume of 100-300 exposures per week. Prints fall outside that cost evaluation as it costs me similarly to make prints from digital or print.
Godfrey
