> From: Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> ...a back-of-the-napkin calculation is that I would have spent
> somewhere north of $25,000 on film and processing if I did.
Really? REALLY?
One big difference between film and digital is that with film, you try to make
every shot count, whereas with digital, you just fire away and sort it out
later.
In looking over my archive, I see that I literally took 1/10th as many photos
when it was film.
I think that if you had been shooting film, you would have been much more
deliberate, and would have taken no more than a tenth as many photos... but
what do I know?
Jan
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|