There's certainly a hell of a learning curve, though learning to print well takes time, too. And I did say that it's cheaper only if you take enough pictures. I might have added that you also shouldn't print too many.
But for convenience and control, digi wins hands down. John On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 22:58:06 +0100, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi John, > > I'm not convinced yet that it's cheaper, or that the additional cost > and time spent learning will produce results sufficiently better than > film to justify the time & money. > > In fact, the increased posting rate is not only caused by me having a > digital camera. I have recently caught up with a backlog of > processing, and I have also been shooting more film simply because I > have been more inclined to photography recently than over the past > couple of years. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of John Forbes >> Sent: 20 June 2006 18:45 >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: Re: The Middle-aged Man and the Sea >> >> Well, one thing digital has done for you is that it has got >> you posting >> pictures. And, dare I say, taking them? >> >> But the other things are that it's much cheaper (provided you >> take plenty >> of pictures), much more convenient (once you've learned all >> about digital >> processing and using PS), and offers you much more control >> (assuming you >> use colour). >> >> That's the three Cs of digital: cost, convenience, control. >> >> John > > > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
