Post New Message | Read Current Messages | FAQ
This is an archived message in our
forum
Posted by Kerry on January 04, 2002 at 21:16:51:
In Reply to: Re: Conventional vs. Digital posted by John Ayres on January 01, 2002 at 17:03:47:
: You will earn your costs back on a good digital camera if you buy one in addition to your Nikon 35mm camera.
I don't use a digital, but from what I hear, you don't save any money if you have archival quality prints made--the type you would want for wedding photos. The cost of high quality photo paper and fade-resistant ink puts the cost of digital prints in the same ballpark as conventional prints made in a professional lab. Prints made with standard ink-jet printer ink have been shown to fade badly within 5 years. Plus, it's long been common wisdom among professional photographers that time spent in a darkroom (or in front of a computer and printer for digital prints) is not productive from a cost/benefit point of view. A photographer's time is better spent shooting pictures or marketing his or her services to new clients. That's why most pros never processed their own film before digital technology hit the market.
Kerry
Follow Ups:
Select From Our Indexes
