Yes, I can relate to that. When I owned my cars (I mean not work provided cars) I also recorded the expenses. I did not record my expenses when I was shooting film 3 years ago.
I agree that going digital saves money spent on processing and film. But then again I had to buy some DVDs, and then external storage device, which thankfully to my family and friends was given to me as a gift. But indeed, digital is more economical on one's wallet. Cheers. On 1/23/07, Godfrey DiGiorgi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All I can tell you, Boris, is that when I was doing photography as a > hobby through the 1990s and into 2001, I was spending as much as > $2000 a year on film and processing. Moving to digital cameras in > 2002 as my primary capture freed up a lot of my money (and time!) to > do more photography. > > I've always had all my photographic endeavors detailed in my > accounting records, just like I have my automobiles, motorcycles and > travel expenses ... It's just way to look at it and say to myself at > the end of the year, "What have I been doing with my money all year? > and was it worth it?" The photography always has been ... ;-) > > G > > On Jan 23, 2007, at 4:42 AM, Boris Liberman wrote: > > > Gentlemen, there has to be a distinction made. It would be only > > logical that the whole way of thinking of a person sells their > > photographs and a person who is pure hobbyist are two totally > > different kettles of fish. > > > > I made similar calc with my *istD. I see very little value in making > > this kind of computation unless one is selling one's own work. It > > would seem that Jens makes a sell or two every now and then ;-). Thus > > for him it is very viable circumstance. > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Boris -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
