Hi Mike ... I'm not defending working with digital, however, you said "It's all comparative."
Well, since you're talking about the time and equipment cost of working with digital, perhaps you should compare that to working in a darkroom, where the cost of darkroom equipment and supplies should be added to the time it takes to make prints. I think that, for the most part, people here shot film and then sent it to a lab to be processed, so the time/cost/frustration factor is not really the same as for those of us who did it all ourselves. The cost of an enlarger, enlarging lenses, easels, timers, chemicals, building a darkroom and all the small bits and pieces, can easily outrun the cost of computer gear, and the time required to make prints can easily exceed that of fiddling with files in Photoshop. Shel > [Original Message] > From: mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Date: 11/13/2006 2:18:15 AM > Subject: Re: Best SD card for K10D Paul wrote: > > I consider my system modest, but I have approximately one terabyte of > > hard disk space, and I'm going to add another 500 gigabytes soon. > > I've also backed up 600 gigabytes of photo files on DVD. It's > > inexpensive and easy. > > Paul > > All comparative. You are looking at at least £1000 of equipment in the > UK, assuming that you have decent accessories such as monitors. > It's a sum that just doesn't add up to a saving unless you are working > at high volumes or can write some of the cost off as a business. > > Plus, we haven't even started on the extra time our hobby now takes. > How quickly did you get cheesed off with scanning negatives? > That's about the time the "average person" will take to get thoroughly > sick of the "fiddling" (a description I have heard myself) required by > digital. Fine if you are getting paid for it but a non-starter for unfanatics.
-- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
