Re: experimenting with 35mm film

"Tony Polson" <docnews2011@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:ne72u3d1c5j3dr074r9hsv8a8pvsokmubt@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Woody" <woody@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>I had one of those - brilliant camera.
>>
>>However you will find two problems (1) sourcing the film amd (2) getting
>>it processed - not to mention the cost.
>
>
> The cost????
>
> It isn't film that costs money, it's digital.
>
> By the time I had bought several DSLR bodies, replacing them as better
> ones became available, had the sensors professionally cleaned several
> times, replaced several of my lenses because, while they gave perfect
> results on film, they didn't work well on digital, upgraded my PC and
> bought new monitors, a monitor profiler and some very expensive
> software, plus additional hard disks for storage, burnt a great many
> CDs and DVDs, and spent a fortune on memory cards ...
>
> ... I could have bought and processed all the film I would need for at
> least the next 20 years.
>
> There is nothing expensive about film.  Digital is a money pit.
>

This is true from some perspectives.

If you 'machine-gun' shoot to get one good image and then show it on
someone 
else's digital projector in a club setting, your cost is entirely
contained 
in the initial purchase of the new toy. Film is dearer if you have a high 
wastage and don't do anything with the majority of the images shot.

If you know that most of your pictures will be usable and you don't need 
them in seconds you can, as you say, buy a lot of film processing for the 
difference in cost.