But I think you're missing some of the point. I can shoot film and let
someone else print me standard size or even enlargements. On the other
hand, I can do it myself and be in control of the entire creative process
and feel a true sense of accomplishment. That's why I do it, not for the
money savings.
If we were just about the money, we'd shoot disposable cameras and print
them at the WalMart.
Ironically, we may go to Washington DC during the Landmarks Tope. My plan is
for the girls to share the E20 and I'll use my, uh, Non-OM camera.
So, if there is an entry -- it will be from my daughters.
Tom
> Probably not a joke. Last time I figured the costs for home printing of
digital photos of 4X6 size, it was significantly more expensive than just
taking a roll of film to Costco or Wal-Mart. On the order of .50/print for
digital vs. about .04/print at Costco. Both the figures above assume
starting with a film negative image, and don't include calculations of the
cost of film, developing and the time/effort or transport involved. Using a
from-the-start digital image doesn't much improve the equation.
>
> Many of the on-line purveyors of prints-from-digital charge more than the
typical traditional film developing shops as well.
>
> Even printing larger size photos isn't in digital's favor, IMO. By the
time one calculates the time and effort involved in getting the photos
edited and corrected to print on a good quality inkjet, and the cost of
expensive inkjet "photo papers" and inks for quality prints, it's a
considerably expensive process.
>
> Where prints from digital begin to make sense, as far as I can see, is
where one wants a large quantity of prints of a single photo. There the time
spent in prepping the work is well-spent, since the finished file can then
be sent to a good printer to be reproduced ad infinitum.
>
> ---
> Scott Gomez
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|