On Nov 25, 2005, at 3:26 AM, frank theriault wrote:
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
I get the impression that that would be quite a compromise. Would that give you both the quality and the flexibility you currently have?
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 think that's the most relevant thing that anyone has said in this entire thread, especially when we consider that most of the work you show is in B&W. We can talk all we like about cost and convenience but if you don't like doing PS stuff then why should you?
FWIW I have tremendous respect for anyone who is willing to mess around in the dark with chemicals. I'd end up drinking the developer and soaking the film in cola (I've just read a Giles collection and it's just the kind of thing he'd draw).
Now my eyes are going square from staring at the screen. Time to make dinner...
- Dave
