I can agree with you regarding the computer. You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem.
But, you make some strange assumptions regarding the camera requirements. As I see Franks pictures they often rely on timing and often shallow DOF. None of these are available with P&S cameras. Just because they are seldom sharp does not mean that small sensors and low resolution is OK. Unsharpness in one of the reasons why I still use film, especially medium format. DagT > fra: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > dato: 2005/11/29 ti AM 03:16:09 CET > til: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net> > emne: Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later) > > i go on vacation and come back to this. has it occurred to any of you to > work out how much it costs Frank to shoot each year doing what he does > today? how many rolls do you think he shoots in a year? you can figure that > out just by counting the times he posts and his discourses on the rolls he > has shot. how much does a roll of film, processing, and printing cost him? > do the arithmetic and you will find he is spending a fair fraction of that > $600 already. wait until the cost of materials goes up. so i have every > reason to ask if saving $600 over a year is a hardship, why isn't what he > spends already a hardship? > > as for the actual dollar figure, $600 is the most possible that Frank needs > to spend. he has a scanner and scans his B&W prints to show us. that means > he has an adequate image editing program on a good enough computer right > now. if his scanner is a USB scanner, he is done. no computer upgrade needed > for B&W. the monitor quality isn't so important because he's doing B&W. if > his computer doesn't have a USB port, he has a couple of options. looking > for a hand-me-down from a friend that has a USB port for perhaps $100, go to > a refurbished computer place that takes them off-lease and resells them for > perhaps $150 for an older but adequate system unit (on occasion, i've seen > some refurbished desktops for $80 that will do the job.), go to PC > Connection or some similar place and configure a new system unit for $250. i > walk around computer shows and see some new system units for $200 and under. > getting a laptop like Rob suggests is about the least cost-effective way of > buying computing power. even then, i see refurbished laptops at computer > shows for $200 that will do what Frank needs doing. > > then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that > sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he > doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that > will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel P&S > camera set to B&W mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend > looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. > if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for > about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy > another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that > camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except > the indoor shots. > > the rest of you who responded with all those negatives, i thought i saw > plenty of group no-think on other mailing lists, but this takes the cake. > just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a new computer to go > digital or not. only a few people questioned the cost. just about no-one > questioned whether Frank needed a DSLR or not. just about no-one questioned > whether he even needed a new anything. i do 5 seconds of arithmetic in my > head and conclude that Frank spends a fair amount of the actual cost needed > to go digital on his photography already and would save a lot of that by > buying a small digital camera and not printing as much. some of you thought > of this, but none of the negative responses did. Frank's $6000 figure was > disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, > including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like > digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of > other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a > nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of > you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car > because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. > > Herb...
