Desmolicious wrote:
Until digital can give me 36 new sensors for my camera for $3-$10, I'm sticking with film.
Let's see. Perhaps 100,000 images from the sensor — more actually, but let's use that number. A $3000 camera. That's about $.03 per frame. Let's add a computer — we'll go expensive and use the high end iMac at about $3500. Add the Photoshop/Lightroom package at $120/year for five years at $600. We're now up to a bit more than $6000 of expense directly attributable to digital. Now we are up to a bit more than $.06 per frame.
To get to your $3 per frame we can do about 2000 frames for the same cost... if we never print anything and don't factor in the (today quite low) cost of the old camera.
The old expression "penny wise and pound foolish" comes to mind. ;-)
rstoddard11 wrote:
I wonder if there are painters who lambaste people for using store bought paint and not making their own out of charcoal and rendered animal fat.
Yes. ;-)
Dan
Dec 20, 2016 at 12:42 PM
Previous versions of gdanmitchell's message #13847264 « Could you go back to film? »
