John Forbes wrote:
I don't know where "no cost" came from. I don't think anybody
claimed that.
Actually, you did say "cost is zero until and unless you want to print."
But I was referring more to how I notice "no cost" generally seems to
pop up as an argument in discussions like this, or should I say, as part
of the digital photo hype.
Perhaps a better way to look at this is to say that it costs nothing
to take some pictures and see how they come out. [ ... ]
Had I used film, I would have taken half as many pictures, and spent
say £10.00, whether the pictures were any good or not. That's where
the cost saving comes in. Trials and mistakes cost nothing.
I won't contest that. I guess what I'm saying that's how the argument
should go. Yet you find that even in "serious" comparisons between film
and digital, it has turned into "taking pictures costs nothing". I can't
help getting a bit annoyed when I see that. It's almost as bad as
"digital is simpler". (Simpler how? Or for whom? And how can it get
simpler than handing your film over to someone else, and get finished
prints back?)
Actually digital has cost me a lot of money. It has rekindled an old
interest in photography, with the result I've spent a fortune on lenses.
There's also that aspect to it, of course ;-) Personally I've used quite
a bit of money on equipment because I've sort of rediscovered film lately...
- T
- Re: Pentax Future? What's next for Pentax... Toralf Lund
-
