I remember when Patrick Lichfield went digital, several years ago now, he
said he saved £75,000 (that's GB pounds) a year on film and processing.
Economics like that can't be ignored, whatever your daily rate.
John
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 23:51:11 +0000, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It isn't economics. Guys who shoot for 15K a day can print any way they
choose. Even the fine art photogs are printing inkjet. Control is part
of it, but the quality is there as well.
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: Hurrah for Shel Disrobing the Emperor
> That only proves that you haven't met the emperor.
You have this idea that digital printing is somehow superior to
tradition
custom printing.
At some point, it may end up that way, because the people doing custom
work
are being forced to adapt to digital.
The pro boys like digital because because they can sit in front of a
computer and pretend to be talented, and because it is cheaper for them
to
churn out inkjet prints, rather than pay for quality printing.
Paul, it's about economics, not quality.
William Robb
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.9 - Release Date: 13/04/2005
