If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
on this page film wins
http://www.digigraphica.com/pick/index.shtml
except if you want to quickly email the pics or put them up on the net. but where is the fire? film SLRs are much cheaper. I could get a film SLR or a 6.1mp digital for $400. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
developwebsites says, sort of:
ttp://www.digigraphica.com/pick/index.shtml except if you want to quickly email the pics or put them up on the net. but where is the fire? I'm currently writing a tool assembly and use manual. If I had to send every photo out for processing, particularly given that I live 35 miles from the nearest black & white processing outfit, I'd have to charge four times as much for the job, which would not turn out as well. A film SLR is certainly cheaper than my Pentax *istD, but so what? I've shot 1000 photos with the Pentax in the past month or less. If that had been film, film and processing costs would have been about $600, maybe more. Two months pays for the camera. A week's work saves me about what the camera cost, in time and production. I can produce a manual, now, that used to take me a month, in something under two weeks, and do a great deal better job of illustration because I instantly see whether or not I have the shot I need. Please, tell me again how film wins. Charlie Self "Bore, n.: A person who talks when you wish him to listen." Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
wins - looses?
tohmatoe - tohmay-toh? potahtoe - potay-toh? ah! let's call the whole thing off? Artio "Developwebsites" wrote in message ... http://www.digigraphica.com/pick/index.shtml except if you want to quickly email the pics or put them up on the net. but where is the fire? film SLRs are much cheaper. I could get a film SLR or a 6.1mp digital for $400. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On 23 Aug 2004 16:24:34 GMT, ATSPAM (Developwebsites)
wrote: http://www.digigraphica.com/pick/index.shtml That web page should be deleted - hopelessly out of date and out of touch... except if you want to quickly email the pics or put them up on the net. but where is the fire? film SLRs are much cheaper. Too bad the film isn't.... I've taken 2000 pics this summer, for free on digital. How much would the film and processing would have cost me? And I haven't yet printed any of my pics, and I will only print a few of them eventually. With film - they all would have been printed and paid for! And tossed in the round file after spending 2 weeks scanning in the good ones!! Man what a waste that would have been. I'm SO much happier now that I don't waste film! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bob writes:
On 23 Aug 2004 16:24:34 GMT, ATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote: http://www.digigraphica.com/pick/index.shtml That web page should be deleted - hopelessly out of date and out of touch... except if you want to quickly email the pics or put them up on the net. but where is the fire? film SLRs are much cheaper. Too bad the film isn't.... I've taken 2000 pics this summer, for free on digital. How much would the film and processing would have cost me? For free? Wear and tear on your media cards which /will/ wear out at some stage and lose data for you don't count? DO you throw all your images away, or were you overlooking storage costs too? Do you make backups? Free. *snort* And I haven't yet printed any of my pics, and I will only print a few of them eventually. With film - they all would have been printed and paid for! And Oh, so you've never heard of dev-only + index print processing? tossed in the round file after spending 2 weeks scanning in the good ones!! Man what a waste that would have been. I'm SO much happier now that I don't waste And now you've escaped all necessity to think think, presumably. B |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
And now you just waste your time;.......since no one cares about the
digi pix either. In article , Bob wrote: And I haven't yet printed any of my pics, and I will only print a few of them eventually. With film - they all would have been printed and paid for! And tossed in the round file after spending 2 weeks scanning in the good ones!! Man what a waste that would have been. I'm SO much happier now that I don't waste film! -- ? ? ? ? LOL |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Bruce Murphy" wrote: Bob writes: (Developwebsites) wrote: film SLRs are much cheaper. Too bad the film isn't.... I've taken 2000 pics this summer, for free on digital. How much would the film and processing would have cost me? For free? Wear and tear on your media cards which /will/ wear out at some stage and lose data for you don't count? I don't think memory cards wear out. (The first reference I could come up with was that a 256 MB CF card was good for "10 million shots".) Besides, even if they did, memory costs go down at such a rate that by the time a memory card was worn out, replacing it would be very cheap. DO you throw all your images away, or were you overlooking storage costs too? Do you make backups? Backup costs are _much_ higher for film. Most scanner types archive 16-bit tiffs. Much larger than RAW files from a dSLR. Much. I'm radical in that I archive 8-bit jpegs after rough tonal and color correction, but that's still a lot of bits. Free. *snort* Much cheaper than film. Especially if your time required for scanning is worth anything. And I haven't yet printed any of my pics, and I will only print a few of them eventually. With film - they all would have been printed and paid for! And Oh, so you've never heard of dev-only + index print processing? Really. Still, 30 frames of film (Velvia 100F 220 + processing) sets me back well over US$15. So that's 50 cents every time I press the shutter. If scanning weren't so incredibly painfull, film costs could get out of hand. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"David J. Littleboy" writes:
"Bruce Murphy" wrote: Bob writes: (Developwebsites) wrote: film SLRs are much cheaper. Too bad the film isn't.... I've taken 2000 pics this summer, for free on digital. How much would the film and processing would have cost me? For free? Wear and tear on your media cards which /will/ wear out at some stage and lose data for you don't count? I don't think memory cards wear out. (The first reference I could come up with was that a 256 MB CF card was good for "10 million shots".) They do, and while modern flash write-rewrite cycle counts might be crazily high, but that's only a mean-until-failure /and/ it has to be remembered that several areas of the flash card (the FAT index bits) will be rewritten far more commonly than a naive calculation might expect. Besides, even if they did, memory costs go down at such a rate that by the time a memory card was worn out, replacing it would be very cheap. Depends how many shots you take, adn how much you care about the shots that fell out of the card. A lot of people seem to think that cheap nasty flash card are just as good, possibly even made in the same factory. As far as prices going down, to a certain extent flash memory prices have been pushed down by benefits accruing from sudden mass production. The margins have been reduced sufficiently that flash is no longer the cash cow it once was, enter the less capable manufacturers who feel they can still cut enough corners to profit. Can you replace a card with a genuinely equivalent one? DO you throw all your images away, or were you overlooking storage costs too? Do you make backups? Backup costs are _much_ higher for film. Most scanner types archive 16-bit tiffs. Much larger than RAW files from a dSLR. Much. I'm radical in that I archive 8-bit jpegs after rough tonal and color correction, but that's still a lot of bits. And yet in the room behind me I have a cardboard box with slides from ths early 60s. Storage cost of that was half a cubic foot in the bottom of various closets over the decades. Whereas storage cost for digital is inevitable ignored by the 'it's all free! free!' crowd. Free. *snort* Much cheaper than film. Especially if your time required for scanning is worth anything. Perhaps cheaper than film, but the breakeven point is a lot higher than people seem to think. And it's certainly not *free* And I haven't yet printed any of my pics, and I will only print a few of them eventually. With film - they all would have been printed and paid for! And Oh, so you've never heard of dev-only + index print processing? Really. Still, 30 frames of film (Velvia 100F 220 + processing) sets me back well over US$15. So that's 50 cents every time I press the shutter. If scanning weren't so incredibly painfull, film costs could get out of hand. Whereas a roll of the XP2 I've been using a lot of recently costs sub AU$5, and dev + index processing is AU$4 or $5 from a decent place, so let's call it $7 or thereabouts. Not exactly stunningly huge, but when you consider digital body markups... B |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"David J. Littleboy" writes:
"Bruce Murphy" wrote: Bob writes: (Developwebsites) wrote: film SLRs are much cheaper. Too bad the film isn't.... I've taken 2000 pics this summer, for free on digital. How much would the film and processing would have cost me? For free? Wear and tear on your media cards which /will/ wear out at some stage and lose data for you don't count? I don't think memory cards wear out. (The first reference I could come up with was that a 256 MB CF card was good for "10 million shots".) They do, and while modern flash write-rewrite cycle counts might be crazily high, but that's only a mean-until-failure /and/ it has to be remembered that several areas of the flash card (the FAT index bits) will be rewritten far more commonly than a naive calculation might expect. Besides, even if they did, memory costs go down at such a rate that by the time a memory card was worn out, replacing it would be very cheap. Depends how many shots you take, adn how much you care about the shots that fell out of the card. A lot of people seem to think that cheap nasty flash card are just as good, possibly even made in the same factory. As far as prices going down, to a certain extent flash memory prices have been pushed down by benefits accruing from sudden mass production. The margins have been reduced sufficiently that flash is no longer the cash cow it once was, enter the less capable manufacturers who feel they can still cut enough corners to profit. Can you replace a card with a genuinely equivalent one? DO you throw all your images away, or were you overlooking storage costs too? Do you make backups? Backup costs are _much_ higher for film. Most scanner types archive 16-bit tiffs. Much larger than RAW files from a dSLR. Much. I'm radical in that I archive 8-bit jpegs after rough tonal and color correction, but that's still a lot of bits. And yet in the room behind me I have a cardboard box with slides from ths early 60s. Storage cost of that was half a cubic foot in the bottom of various closets over the decades. Whereas storage cost for digital is inevitable ignored by the 'it's all free! free!' crowd. Free. *snort* Much cheaper than film. Especially if your time required for scanning is worth anything. Perhaps cheaper than film, but the breakeven point is a lot higher than people seem to think. And it's certainly not *free* And I haven't yet printed any of my pics, and I will only print a few of them eventually. With film - they all would have been printed and paid for! And Oh, so you've never heard of dev-only + index print processing? Really. Still, 30 frames of film (Velvia 100F 220 + processing) sets me back well over US$15. So that's 50 cents every time I press the shutter. If scanning weren't so incredibly painfull, film costs could get out of hand. Whereas a roll of the XP2 I've been using a lot of recently costs sub AU$5, and dev + index processing is AU$4 or $5 from a decent place, so let's call it $7 or thereabouts. Not exactly stunningly huge, but when you consider digital body markups... B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is it Copal or copal? Then what is it? | Nick Zentena | Large Format Photography Equipment | 14 | July 27th 04 03:31 AM |
ALDEN-74 BULK FILM LOADER - This will be in 35mm and darkroom and no other postings | Richard Knoppow | In The Darkroom | 0 | July 14th 04 09:05 PM |
Insane new TSA rule for film inspection | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 94 | June 23rd 04 05:17 AM |
The first film of the Digital Revolution is here.... | Todd Bailey | Film & Labs | 0 | May 27th 04 08:12 AM |
Sixty-year-old undeveloped film | Mark | In The Darkroom | 13 | February 22nd 04 07:30 AM |