Shoot LOTS of Digital, it's FREE..., or IS it?!?!
Jun 6, 2015 11:31:15 #
jsharp wrote:
I have gotten five of my 8 dogs for free, 4 poms and 1 lhasa-apso. All were loved.
Even if the dog simply shows up (as several of mine did) they ain't free. After all you gotta feed them. Vet bills ain't free either. Dogs cost plenty, but worth every penny
Jun 6, 2015 11:34:57 #
jsharp wrote:
I have gotten five of my 8 dogs for free, 4 poms and 1 lhasa-apso. All were loved.
Right. Our Lhasa Apso was free. Well, at the time we lived in Idaho and my wife had to purchase round trip air fare to fly up here to help our daughter with some problems. Our daughter bought the dog and gave it to us as a way of saying "Thanks." Since then, Murphy has cost us several thousand $$$$ in vet bills, dog food, etc. Sometimes "free" isn't quite as free as we might think.
Jun 6, 2015 11:41:45 #
BobHartung wrote:
I doubt anyone here, unless we have a PhD economist with the requisite mathematical training, can judge the potential current cost of an older film system. My $0.02
Bob, now you've really done it.
I fear you may have woken the sleeping giants, all those here with the PhD's in economics and the Mathematicians!!!
A double whammy!!! :lol:
You might even get a lecture on calculating your $0.02! :lol: :lol:
SS
Jun 6, 2015 11:44:11 #
LoL
Free?
Even the cost of electricity cost something. Without that, you have nothing but an camera and memory card.
Free?
Even the cost of electricity cost something. Without that, you have nothing but an camera and memory card.
Jun 6, 2015 11:55:18 #
SharpShooter wrote:
I think I read every day that shooting digital is ... (show quote)
I don't think that digital is free, or even hear that comment. I do hear that the film is. Given the cost of an SD card and how many shots you can take before one is worn out. I will take that over film and processing any day.
Jun 6, 2015 11:56:03 #
Jun 6, 2015 12:05:21 #
rehess wrote:
And, yet, since I did learn in the day of film, it is hard for me to take a few extra shots - or use a burst when a single-shot "will do" - because my deepest mind doesn't understand that nothing will have to be send off (with more money) to Kodak for (Kodachrome) processing.
I think of it as the best of both worlds, film teaches you to care about each and every shot and digital allows you the freedom to experiment and work a subject in ways you would never have tried on film. It's a great time to be a photographer.
Jun 6, 2015 12:06:46 #
Don't forget the cost of the car and gas to drive to the store to drop off and pick up your film! Or, don't forget about the cost of your darkroom and all the developing equipment. And if you stored your film in a refrigerator. . . .
Jun 6, 2015 12:08:20 #
jsharp wrote:
I have gotten five of my 8 dogs for free, 4 poms and 1 lhasa-apso. All were loved.
I did a double-take. The font-face on my computer turned your first dogs into "4 porns" :-D
Jun 6, 2015 12:10:38 #
SharpShooter wrote:
I think I read every day that shooting digital is ... (show quote)
Reminds me of the old story a few years ago when people starting burning wood because of the high cost of electricity.
Chain saw: $250
Log splitter: $550
Trailer to haul wood: $1200
New 4x4 truck for trailer: $20,000
lol lol
Jun 6, 2015 12:12:23 #
SharpShooter wrote:
I think I read every day that shooting digital is ... (show quote)
Shooting digital is practically free...it's the cost of G.A.S. that's a killer.
Jun 6, 2015 12:13:07 #
OK, so I had to pay for my cameras, as well as the computers, etc. But I can justify the expense of the computers and printers as they all get used for stuff other than photography. I have to pay for electricity, anyway, so I can count that out. And sure, lenses cost, but they're necessary, anyway, whether you have a film or digital camera. That leaves the camera and SD cards, and without either, you don't take pictures. So in the end, the only thing that is truly free is the exercise of pressing the shutter button on the camera, or focusing a manual focus/zoom lens. All the rest you'd have to pay for, anyway. As for imaging software, that's optional, too, as most cameras come with the manufacturer's version of photo software, or in the case of Apple, Macs come with (now) "Photos." Plainly, though, these programs are lacking for the serious photographer, so that becomes a necessary expense. So, free? Nope, not even, but here we all are, aren't we?
Oh yeah, remember when the Polaroid camera was around? We all thought, "Great, no film processing, and we get the picture instantly." (sort of) It was great, but remember how much that Polaroid film cost? and you only got 8 or 10 images, too.
Oh yeah, remember when the Polaroid camera was around? We all thought, "Great, no film processing, and we get the picture instantly." (sort of) It was great, but remember how much that Polaroid film cost? and you only got 8 or 10 images, too.
Jun 6, 2015 12:13:11 #
There are front-end costs and back-end costs. It is some of the latter that are almost 'free.'
Jun 6, 2015 12:14:34 #
SharpShooter wrote:
I think I read every day that shooting digital is ... (show quote)
Reminds me of the old story a few years ago when people starting burning wood because of the high cost of electricity.
Chain saw: $250
Log splitter: $550
Trailer to haul wood: $1200
New 4x4 truck for trailer: $20,000
lol lol
Jun 6, 2015 12:20:54 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.