[at-l] Digital Cameras

[saunterer@jimbullard.org (saunterer@jimbullard.org)]

At 09:53 AM 1/21/02 -0600, Shane Steinkamp wrote:
> >    * If your intent is only to make prints, printing your own on an ink
> > jet printer is not really cheaper than commercial lab processing and
> > requires a computer, image processing software and a printer.
> > Not everyone
> > is into computers and learning to do their own image processing.
>
>8x10 photo prints from my Epson 780 cost me about $1.00, including high
>quality photo paper.  I can't get an 8x10 print from any lab that I know of
>for that price.

Are you counting the cost of ink cartridge replacement?  I have an Epson 
Photo 875 that creates photo quality prints but burns ink like crazy and I 
estimate that the total cost is closer to $2.00 per 8×10.  There is also 
the issue that you have to have the computer, software and printer to make 
these prints and depreciation on these must be added in to fairly compare 
to the average photographer with a 35mm camera taking photos to a lab 
in  their local drug store, Wally World or whatever.

The folks on this list all have PCs (or Macs) but not everyone does.  My 
comparison was intended to consider all the factors of digital vs 
film.  There is definitely a place for both depending on what you plan to 
do with the images.   For the person who already owns a PC and printer 
(which possibly came with  photo processing software) and who wants to make 
an occasional print with most of their images intended for web or digital 
albums, digital is the obvious choice.

I do a lot of high quality enlargement (11×14 and 16×20) that I can print 
in my own darkroom, which admittedly costs money also, but is cheaper than 
the equipment it would take to do equivalent work in digital.  The bottom 
line point was that a 1GB flash card is a great thing but it is far from 
being the only consideration in deciding between digital and film.

sAunTerer