> > From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2005/11/24 Thu PM 02:26:15 GMT > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later > > On 11/23/05, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as > > much, plus pay more for B&W film. > > Twice as much? > > Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular basis. They've > long since been paid for. > > How many digital bodies would I need to replace them? How much would > that cost? I'd like to have not just a dslr (I'd prefer two), but a > digital rangefinder (that Epson ain't cheap). I wouldn't even bother > thinking of "replacing" my old Yashicamat, so I'm looking at minimum > three bodies. > > My computer at home is a dinosaur. It would cost thousands to upgrade > it to a point where it would be an efficient tool for processing/post > processing/storage device. I don't have a photo-quality printer, so > tack on hundreds more. > > I'm figuring that it's gonna cost me at least $6,000 to put me in a > position where my digital capabilities are equivalent to what I now > have in film - and that's likely an low estimate. > > Even if it's argued that I could get away with one body, the cost of > that plus computer upgrades would be minimun $3,000 > > Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week > of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's > got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving > big-time by sticking with film. > > I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me "twice as > much" as going digital. >
But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money back. At least, I think that's how it works. ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
