These comparisons are fun. When I bought my first digital camera I built a spread sheet that calculated my total cost per shot for both film and digital.
More or less the same thing, just expressed differently. Cost per shot on digital continues to decrease with time. Cost per shot on film levels off and remains relatively constant. If you keep your equipment long enough, digital cost per shot is lower. By the way, I didn't include the cost of my computer or photoshop. I use it for both digital and film. When computing the cost of film I didn't include the cost of the plumbing in my darkroom. It came with the house. See you later, gs <http://georgesphotos.net> On Nov 14, 2007 7:22 AM, Doug Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > > > Print the lot out, factor in your time at a reasonable rate, > > _then_ come back and tell us how much it cost. > > I wasn't printing them then, either. That per-roll cost was purely for > the film, developing, and medium resolution scanning. > > > I'll let you off with capital costs...... 8-) > > Cap costs weren't part of the equation. I'm looking purely at the > incremental cost. As a computer geek by trade, I didn't have to buy any > computer stuff just for the photography. > > > -- > Thanks, > DougF (KG4LMZ) > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
