Op Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:26:15 +0100 schreef frank theriault
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 11/23/05, Herb Chong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as
much, plus pay more for B&W film.
<snip>
and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film.
I think you're right: I did the math a while ago, and the time to recover
the expenses for _one_ digital body was about 3 years, based on the amount
of pictures I currently take. Since I'm quite sure a DSLR would need
upgrading after such a period, just like a PC, I don't see any cost
savings...
I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me "twice as
much" as going digital.
He didn't say that, I think. I read the comment as a prediction that it
will be twice as expensive in the future as it is now. That might very
well be correct: I'm not in a city like Toronto, and it's hard to get
color done right locally, let alone black and white. Black and white is
being sent to the big Kodak plant in Belgium for years. And their output
quality is way below even my meagre standards, if they don't cut up the
negatives :(
--
Regards, Lucas
