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.

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

ATSPAM (Developwebsites) wrote in
:

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.

This was written June 2002. As far as I remember, the discussions
even in this forum were rather sceptic to digital cameras. Rememeber
the discussions whether digital could replace film? I am not sure,
but I think that lots of people did not think so even 2003. But today,
not many say anything about film not being replaced - they see it
right now happening.

So ... this web page is an amusing historical view of the comparison.

"Do you need to make huge prints (16x20) - then go film!"
Now - what do you say about that?

"Do you want exchangable lenses - then go film!"
Hmmm ... digicams never ever are going to be popular

"Do you want cheap duplicatres - choose film!"
Totally void by now.

"Do you need to take pictures in low light - choose film"
The low light quality of digtal has improved lots since 2002.

So ... on that page film won - 2002.


/Roland

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.

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!

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

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

"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

"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

"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