digital is wining

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What do you think about it:
http://www.plgaleria.com/index.php?fotografia=553
I think in analog photography cost of it is to big.

--
Qbab
www.barbasz.republika.pl

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
accessories, and hardware costs.

Jules
http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
on the net!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1112760213.636629.242280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
> to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
> accessories, and hardware costs.
>
> Jules
> http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
> on the net!

But with digital the more you shoot the cheaper it costs per shot...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Julian Tan wrote:

> Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
> to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
> accessories, and hardware costs.

Those are all one-time costs though. The CDN$1800 I dropped for my
DRebel with extended grip, two batteries and 512MB memory card is
currently at about 49 cents per picture with the 3700+ frames I've shot,
and gets cheaper with every subsequent shot. I don't have to keep
paying for them over and over.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dirty Harry wrote:
> "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1112760213.636629.242280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
>>to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
>>accessories, and hardware costs.
>>
>>Jules
>>http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
>>on the net!
>
>
> But with digital the more you shoot the cheaper it costs per shot...
>
>
I spent about $450 for my current camera and memory cards. I have taken
about 1750 pictures with it so far, and have printed less than 50. So,
I am sitting around $.03 per picture at the moment, and every time I
click the shutter, it gets cheaper.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> writes:

> Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
> to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
> accessories, and hardware costs.

Most of those are one time costs except for the prints, and unless you print
the majority of shots you take as a 4x6 (multiple prints and larger prints
would be the same for both), digital comes out ahead. Before I bought my DSLR
and its lenses, I was definately in the digital saves me money side of the
eqaution, even considering all of the gear I've bought. I figure it will be
only a few months before I'm saving more money by using digital.

And note, equipment lust occurs in the film side of the equation too.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I think that in this example cost good photo is lower for digital then
analog.
Of course you can do similar in analog photography in one shot but
probability is not big
In this kind of picture digital is winning

--
Fotki ? Jak nie jak tak.
www.barbasz.republika.pl

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This talk of winning and losing seems to indicate that photography is a
zero-sum game. Isn't there room for both? To me digital is just
another format. I didn't get rid of my 35mm equipment when I got a
medium format camera, nor did I get rid of my film equipment when I got
into digital. Room for both as far as I am concerned.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1112807393.6e178b954f4c2fe8b05fc147dac296b9@teranews>,
Don Stauffer <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

> This talk of winning and losing seems to indicate that photography is a
> zero-sum game. Isn't there room for both? To me digital is just
> another format. I didn't get rid of my 35mm equipment when I got a
> medium format camera, nor did I get rid of my film equipment when I got
> into digital. Room for both as far as I am concerned.

Yes there is & Your not alone.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Don Stauffer wrote:
> This talk of winning and losing seems to indicate that photography is a
> zero-sum game. Isn't there room for both? To me digital is just
> another format. I didn't get rid of my 35mm equipment when I got a
> medium format camera, nor did I get rid of my film equipment when I got
> into digital. Room for both as far as I am concerned.
I still have several film cameras. It would be silly to try to sell any
of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never expect
to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I want to do
better, faster, cheaper.
YMMV

--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:MG05e.1877$Ax7.1256@fe04.lga...
> Don Stauffer wrote:
> It would be silly to try to sell any
> of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never expect
> to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I want to do
> better, faster, cheaper.


Yes, if you have low standards, I am sure it is true.
> YMMV
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Meissner wrote:
> "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
>>to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
>>accessories, and hardware costs.
>
>
> Most of those are one time costs except for the prints, and unless you print
> the majority of shots you take as a 4x6 (multiple prints and larger prints
> would be the same for both), digital comes out ahead. Before I bought my DSLR
> and its lenses, I was definately in the digital saves me money side of the
> eqaution, even considering all of the gear I've bought. I figure it will be
> only a few months before I'm saving more money by using digital.
>
> And note, equipment lust occurs in the film side of the equation too.
>
At 1750 and rising, I am already about $100 ahead using going rates for
developing and printing a 24 roll of color print film on 4x6 paper.
It's all free now, right? Grin.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"digital winning" is thru in this exampla not in all.
MF is in landscape best for me (LF is to hevy)
I think you know what I think

www.barbasz.republika.pl

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <d31dhk$iig$1@news.onet.pl>,
"Qbab" <barbasz.wytnij@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:

> "digital winning" is thru in this exampla not in all.
> MF is in landscape best for me (LF is to hevy)
> I think you know what I think
>
> www.barbasz.republika.pl

Ah - LF is "not" too heavy,...if Josef Sudek
could manage an 8x10 so can you 🙂

And so can I.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gregory Blank <bugstopped_@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
: In article <d31dhk$iig$1@news.onet.pl>,
: "Qbab" <barbasz.wytnij@poczta.onet.pl> wrote:

: > "digital winning" is thru in this exampla not in all.
: > MF is in landscape best for me (LF is to hevy)
: > I think you know what I think
: >
: > www.barbasz.republika.pl

: Ah - LF is "not" too heavy,...if Josef Sudek
: could manage an 8x10 so can you 🙂

: And so can I.

I've got a friend with an 11x14 that weighs more then he does.
In the field he drags the camera behind him on a cart.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
: Dirty Harry wrote:
: > "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:1112760213.636629.242280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
: >
: >>Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
: >>to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
: >>accessories, and hardware costs.
: >>
: >>Jules
: >>http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
: >>on the net!
: >
: >
: > But with digital the more you shoot the cheaper it costs per shot...
: >
: >
: I spent about $450 for my current camera and memory cards. I have taken
: about 1750 pictures with it so far, and have printed less than 50. So,
: I am sitting around $.03 per picture at the moment, and every time I
: click the shutter, it gets cheaper.


Just think of how much effort you would have saved if you only took the 50
pictures that you ended up printing.
--




Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
-------------------
fwp@deepthought.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Wayan wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:MG05e.1877$Ax7.1256@fe04.lga...
>
>>Don Stauffer wrote:
>>It would be silly to try to sell any
>> of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never expect
>>to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I want to do
>>better, faster, cheaper.
>
>
>
> Yes, if you have low standards, I am sure it is true.
>
>>YMMV
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
>
If by 'low standards', you mean I don't insist on an 8x10 view camera,
yes, they are quite low. If you mean I don't like good pictures,
simply, and easily taken, and migrated to my computer, then you are
wrong. My most important criteria are color accuracy and detail up to
the limits of visibility on a 4x6 print, and convenience, in that order.
I don't examine 8x10 prints with a loupe, and I don't print 20x30, and I
don't carry a color matching card around. And you should know that the
cameras I am talking about are such as the Minox B, Ricoh 35 mm, and a
Kodak Pocket Instamatic 42. Which one would you want to buy? Warning,
the Minox has salt air and coral dust damage. I keep it for sentimental
reasons.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Frank Pittel wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> : Dirty Harry wrote:
> : > "Julian Tan" <cuteseal@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : > news:1112760213.636629.242280@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> : >
> : >>Depends. If you print out your photos, there is still an ongoing cost
> : >>to digital photography. Plus you need to factor in the memory cards,
> : >>accessories, and hardware costs.
> : >>
> : >>Jules
> : >>http://www.shuttertalk.com - the friendliest digital photography forums
> : >>on the net!
> : >
> : >
> : > But with digital the more you shoot the cheaper it costs per shot...
> : >
> : >
> : I spent about $450 for my current camera and memory cards. I have taken
> : about 1750 pictures with it so far, and have printed less than 50. So,
> : I am sitting around $.03 per picture at the moment, and every time I
> : click the shutter, it gets cheaper.
>
>
> Just think of how much effort you would have saved if you only took the 50
> pictures that you ended up printing.

None. IT would have been wasted as the ones I printed are not among the
best, just the ones OTHERS wanted. I only print for other people. I
view my pictures on the computer.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:
> I still have several film cameras. It would be silly to try to sell any
> of them, except for one that is a collector's item, but I never expect
> to actually USE one of them again. Digital just does what I want to do
> better, faster, cheaper.
> YMMV
>
I would LOVE to have a real DSLR. However, I can't seem to find them as
cheap as my film SLR. My wife just bought a film Nikon N65, for around
200 bucks. Cheapest DSLR I can find is over 800. Some of my photography
is macro stuff, where it is important to place plane of best focus very
precisely along objects. LCD readout just doesn't hack it. So I need
SLR. But can't afford a digital one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

: Many, if not most, of my pictures are simply records of times, places,
: or people. Maximum possible quality is not as important as capturing
: the moment.

I agree. When I take photos the fall into several categories. One
category is "publish worthy". There may be 2 or 3 per thousand taken that
would be of the quality of the ones in publications such as magazines. The
next category is "show off". These are the ones that I may print off and
show to my friends and relatives. Frequently these are vacation photos
documenting place and event. This probably comes to about 20 or 30 per
hundred. The vast majority of my photos are "memorys". They will never
mean much to anyone but me. Theme, composition, subject, etc they are on
par with the photos that you get from a child with a P&S camera. But
since their main purpose is to spark memories of the time and place and
what I was thinking and feeling at that moment, they don't have to have
much "polish".

Now from day to day the numbers change. There are some days when I get
lucky and find 1 per hundred photos to be "publish". On other days I'm
lucky if I get 10 memories in the entire day. On the latter day a camera
is more use as a paper weight. I am philosophical about it. Since I
rarely plan out photos in advance (beyond the most broad outline) I
realize that it is basically the luck of the draw. If I'm in the right
place, at the right time, looking in the right direction, with my camera
at hand, Magic can happen. Other days nothing more dramatic than grass
growing catches my eye.

It is true that the majority of my photos don't need a high quality
camera, but I am never sure when the great photo will pop into my view.
And since I don't need to carry two cameras, I shoot everything with my
good camera.

So I agree that some discussions here about acceptable image quality is
two people talking about different purposes. Both are right, from their
personal point of view. Some may be disappointed that they only get 2
photos per 500 that are of the quality as they see in photo magazines.
Others are happy if they get 90 of a hundred that show what the photog is
seeing, with one photo out of several DAYS of shooting that catches the
eye and imagination. Both views are right and both views are wrong.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL