film still lives

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.

In article ,
ATSPAM says...
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.

Keep fishin', trolly.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

ATSPAM (Developwebsites) writes:

http://www.digigraphica.com/pick/index.shtml

They're wrong about a number of things.

For one thing, the price they give for a digital SLR body is *THREE
TIMES* what the current low-end bodies cost (Nikon N70, Canon Digital
Rebel 300).

For another, at least with the digital SLRs, they're *better* in dim
light than film cameras, because they have less noise at high ISO than
film has grain. They also tolerate tungsten light better, and at
least for me nearly all low-light situations are tungsten.

They also don't discuss how many pictures you plan to take. A 36
exposure roll of film costs me about $5, and processing costs
somewhere from $4 (1-hour lab process only, no prints) to $20+
(pro-lab, contact sheet or proofs). I would have spent more than the
*entire* cost of my Fuji S2 on film and processing to take the
pictures I've taken with it in the last 1.7 years. Digital can be a
lot cheaper than film for high-volume users.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/