> > From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2006/06/21 Wed PM 12:41:38 GMT > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: Re: The Middle-aged Man and the Sea > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 09:02:00 +0100, mike wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > >> > >> From: "John Forbes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Date: 2006/06/20 Tue PM 05:45:19 GMT > >> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > >> Subject: Re: The Middle-aged Man and the Sea > >> > >> Well, one thing digital has done for you is that it has got you posting > >> pictures. And, dare I say, taking them? > >> > >> But the other things are that it's much cheaper (provided you take > >> plenty > >> of pictures), much more convenient (once you've learned all about > >> digital > >> processing and using PS), and offers you much more control (assuming you > >> use colour). > > > > Unless you print the pictures you take; unless you have a decent lab to > > process your slides; unless you have a decent lab to follow your > > printing instructions. > > Decent labs (if you can find one) increase the cost of using film even > more. > > >> That's the three Cs of digital: cost, convenience, control. > > > > It's the same three Cs of film. > > Kindly explain.
For the cost of a digital camera and kit lens, computer/software and printer, you can get a perfectly reasonable 35mm setup and buy a hell of a lot of film and processing. For the average user, I suspect that the end point of the equation will be reached at about the same time as the computer or the software needs upgrading, thus starting the cycle over again. You drop your film off and pick up the outcome - how much more convenience do you want? Sitting for hours in front of a monitor is not convenient - pleasurable to some but then so is being rubbed with Yak fat and walloped with phone books. If you can find a lab that will follow instructions, you have as much control as anyone using home equipment. > >> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:08:38 +0100, Bob W <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > >> >> Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff > >> >> > >> >> Hi Bob, > >> >> > >> >> I'd suggest upgrading to CS2. You may as well get the better > >> >> raw converter > >> >> and current features. I've used both CS and CS2, and CS2, by > >> >> a definite > >> >> margin, is a better program all the way. Bridge is far > >> >> better to use on > >> >> several levels than the file browser in PS 7.0 and CS. Plus, > >> >> and I can't > >> >> say for sure without checking, your camera may not be > >> >> supported in CS - > >> >> you'd have to check the Adobe site. > >> > > >> > Yes - I meant CS2. > >> > > >> > One of the things I don't like about digital photography is that I > >> > have to learn a whole lot of new stuff, taking a lot of time, for > >> > what? Do I get better results than film? Is it cheaper than film? Is > >> > it more convenient than film? The benefits I've identified so far are > >> > delayed-action chimping, and fast turnaround. I can live without fast > >> > turnaround. I can see that chimping could have its uses. But are they > >> > worth the time, cost and effort? Answers on a postcard, please. > >> > ----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
