On 30 Nov 2005 at 20:24, Toralf Lund wrote: > Actually, I don't believe for one moment that digital photos are > generally free, either (as I've mentioned before.) I just have too much > experience with management of large amounts of data for that. What can > be said, is that what you decide to throw away, is free. So like I said > (more or less), if I had thought that I would want to delete a lot of > images, I would have got a digital camera a long time ago...
This argument is moot, who says all files need to be maintained on-line, that;s the only way that cost of storage could become significant. The price of good quality DVD media is less than US$0.50 per disc so each RAW image (using the bloated *ist D files) costs less than US$0.0015, so it costs US$15 to store 10,000 RAW files, hardly bank breaking. > As has been pointed out by other people on this list earlier, some > experience with the more careful planning normally associated with film, > is probably good for most photographers... Careful planning or not I usually come away from any photo opportunity with more usable images shooting digital than I did film because I'm no longer constrained by the cost of film. I still shoot film but it's a very small fraction of my total output, but it still costs me way more than US$15 per roll of ten shots. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
