RE: [Leica] Leica and digital photography

["Sam Krneta" <skrneta@mindspring.com>]

BD,

What convincing? Let me break up the fight between you two identities.
Do both, digital and film. I find that digital is great for snapping at
family outings and as a back up, for then quick snaps. I wouldn't take
digital on a European vacation where the shots would be very dear to me.

Sam Krneta

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of B. D.
Colen
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 4:24 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica and digital photography

Come on, Austin - I'm not going to get in an argument with you, because
I
know I can't possibly win ;-)....But....I suppose we're assuming that
one
already has a computer...

But let's see, film is how much per roll, assuming one is shooting color
negative - or slide? And processing is how much per roll? And once one
goes
digital one presumably never again has to buy film or pay for
processing?

I know that I pay about $2 per roll for gray market tri-x, and pay $8
per
roll for processing....so if I shoot 25 rolls, that's $250  per job.
Which
means that if I was shooting a job a week, which I'm not, in my first
year I
could set up a terrific digital darkroom, with all the redundency one
could
possibly want, and enough storage media to carry me for years to
come....and
then the next year I could start replacing digital equipment.....all out
of
my film and processing money....

Now, if only I can convince myself to sell my Leica equipment to finance
the
purchase of the digital equipment.....but so far my digital side hasn't
managed to convince my analogue side...;-)

B. D.
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Austin Franklin <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 5:12 PM
Subject: RE: [Leica] Leica and digital photography


> > Face it, despite what someone suggested, digital saves money. You
> > can argue
> > all you want about the quality, but no one who has any idea what so
ever
> > what they're talking about will contend that digital is more
> > expensive than
> > film.
> >
> > B. D.
>
> Hum.  Well, what about the cost of storing the digital images (and you
do
> need multiple copies BTW)?  They can be burned to CD, and you can get
500
or
> so per CD I'd guess, but you do need to have a computer with a CD
> writer...and that doesn't come free.  It isn't that expensive, but it
sure
> does enter into the equation.  Storing film is cheap, put it in a
box...but
> there really, at least in my book, isn't a clear winner as far as cost
goe
s,
> and I'm hard pressed to accept a blanket statement that digital is
cheaper,
> since I know for me, it hasn't been...but then, I probably don't have
any
> idea what so ever what I'm talking about ;-)
>
> Austin
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, see
http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html