Well, your cost of supplies is far cheaper than mine. 25 Sheets 8.5x11 Photo Glossy paper $20. Set of ink cartridges for Canon BJC-620 $35 (those are my actual cost, rounded to the dollar). Cartridges last about one pack of paper for photo quality prints (again my actuall results). 2 up 4x6 = 50 for $55 = $1+ per print if every print is right! Maybe I need a newer printer, but I would guess your figures are skewed every bit as much as your arguments.
But the fact is all this argument is silly. Digital stands on its own. Conventional photography stands on its own. The investment in equipment is much higher for digital at present, for materials it tends to be lower (but not as much lower as you would have us believe). In another five years I would expect 90% of commercial photography to be digital. I suspect that film will be the media of choice for fine arts photography for quite a while yet. --graywolf ------------------------------------------------- The optimist's cup is half full, The pessimist's is half empty, The wise man enjoys his drink. ----- Original Message ----- From: Mike Johnston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:23 AM Subject: Re: Digital cameras are FREE > But to duplicate your traditional setup detailed below, here's what I'd do: > I'd get a good "deluxe p/s" for $400-$700. I'd buy a Canon S600 printer for > $150 and Epson Matte Heavyweight paper, which is 25 cents a sheet for > 8.5x11. If you want to be really strict about duplicating what you're > getting on traditional media, I suppose you'd tell me I could really only > get two 4x6 prints on a letter-sized sheet (if I got to optimize things, I'd > fit four slightly smaller prints on an 8.5x11 sheet, but what the hey). Inks > are indeed fairly expensive, but you can get each ink tank for $8.95 if you > know where to look, and a set of tanks will do for about 70 8x10s. Count the > true dimensions of the 8x10 print as 7.5x 9.5 inches, and we'll say that's > 71.25 square inches printed times 70 sheets, or 4,987.5 square inches > printed per inkset. Each 4x6 requires 24 sq. in. of printed area, so that's > 207 4x6s per inkset. Your actual yield would be somewhat more than that, but > never mind that for now. > > So calculate the cost of prints: inks, $8.95 x 4 = $35.80, and add a few > bucks for shipping, call it $40; divide $40 by 207 and you get about 20 > cents; add the cost of one sheet of paper for two prints, and you get > 32.5--call it 33--cents per 4x6. > > So shooting and processing are free, and 4x6s cost 33 cents each. So I don't > agree when you say "24 4x6 prints are going to cost you about $25 if you > print them yourself"--24 prints are costing about $8. - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
