paying the cost of taking pictures
Oct 2, 2021 11:04:10 #
Oct 2, 2021 11:19:29 #
davpal wrote:
if you in the financial position that the cost of ... (show quote)
With the plethora of old film SLRs available, many for under $100, the total cost to purchase a used film camera and 25 rolls of 36 exposure Kodak 200 ISO film with processing at $10 per roll, comes to about $800. That is the cost of a mid level DSLR. Add to that the cost of a computer and the program for post processing, and the cost for digital rises a bit higher to get started. I'll agree the overall cost per photo will diminish over time.
But, why discourage someone from following their personal desires and wants as long as it does not impact on your personal wants and desires? We all have the right to live our lives as we prefer, and for some that might include taking photos with film.
Oct 2, 2021 11:54:26 #
Picture Taker
Loc: Michigan Thumb
If you think you are shooting film you will find that your pictures are better. That should be your habbit to take better pictures. Quality not quantity.
Oct 2, 2021 11:55:53 #
josquin1
Loc: Massachusetts
Yes but when one shot film they were much more careful how they composed the pictures. Now most people just point and shoot and hope that maybe a couple will turn out keepers.
Oct 2, 2021 11:59:09 #
davpal wrote:
if you in the financial position that the cost of ... (show quote)
I was doing fine! I could afford the price of film and processing fine back in the 90's. I don't shoot a lot but about 1000 shots a year which I do the same with my digital camera.
Thanks to the people like you, film is no longer affordable! So thank you for nothing.
Oct 2, 2021 12:03:26 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Said by any True Photographer: lower your expectations to match your results.
"Lower your expectations"? Why lower them when with study and practice you can improve your ability and rise to your expectations, then maybe raise your expectations a bit more. If I'm aiming for the stars and only reach the moon, I'm not going to accept that as my final goal, I'm going to keep trying and learn how to reach the stars.
I started photography with an instamatic and then a movie camera before getting a SLR (have owned a few) and eventually a DSLR (again have owned a few). Over the intervening years I have read, practiced, studied, and discussed the subject and the process with others resulting in improved skills.
Oct 2, 2021 13:35:46 #
the best I was ever able to do was 3 36ex rolls for $10 with mail in processing (fuli color slides)... comes to a little less the 10 cents a photo.... TALK ABOUT COST??? remember before color or b/w 35mm, the cost of feeding a 4x5 graphic... 
Oct 2, 2021 14:27:33 #
Remember that digital cameras have a count of pictures where film cameras don't. Therefore, add a new camera body when you reach that magic number of pictures taken.
Oct 2, 2021 14:31:56 #
I still shoot 4x5, as well as 120. Process all in my darkroom. Yes, there is some capital equipment investments, but those last a lifetime.
--Bob
--Bob
k2edm wrote:
the best I was ever able to do was 3 36ex rolls fo... (show quote)
Oct 2, 2021 14:32:38 #
Oct 2, 2021 14:34:28 #
To whom are you directing this question?
--Bob
--Bob
Fred805 wrote:
What scanner do you use and the format of your negatives?
Oct 2, 2021 14:44:56 #
Oct 2, 2021 14:48:01 #
The formats I regularly use are 35mm, 2-1/4x2-1/4, 2-1/4x2-3/4, and 4x5. I use an Epson V850 scanner driven by Silverfast software.
--Bob
--Bob
REStoffer wrote:
Anyone, did I direct it to you, sorry.
Oct 2, 2021 14:54:21 #
I wrote an item about scanning 35mm negatives with a V600 at: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-689142-1.html
Oct 2, 2021 14:58:54 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.