"jjs" wrote in message:

Add it all up, again and again. There's NO FRIGGIN END to the cost of
digital!

Substitute the word "photography" for the word "digital," and you have
a lament that predates the word "shutterbug."

Cost comparisons only work if you ensure you're comparing similar
processes. I limited my comment to the "shoot and preview" part of
the process for that reason.

In your situation, your wife is doing things she wouldn't do with
film photography. Take those portable external drives as an example.
Without digital, she'd be hauling around prints or trays of slides
instead. Physical limitations would then force her to be more
selective.

The same comment applies to the computer and printer. Chances are
your wife could take her memory cards to the same place as you would
take a some film and get the same quality of prints. If you want
the same "print at home" capability with film, you'd either need a
darkroom, or the same computer and printer _plus_ a scanner.

Presumably, your wife would want to share the photographs even if
they were made on film. So if you forced her to use a film camera,
she'd just have a CD made at processing time. You'd end up with
more CD's to store, plus the same or higher web hosting costs.

Digital _can_ have a cost disadvantage in the initial storage of
exposures. Using a CF card to store images is more expensive than
storing them as exposed rolls of film. But some of that is offset
by the ability to review and delete the images inside the camera.

My overall diagnosis is a case of packratitis. Whether it is an
chronic case or merely acute remains to be seen.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.