I think Thom was right, again...

Started Mar 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
Erik Magnuson Forum Pro • Posts: 12,247
Does it matter if you get more out of it?


Some time ago Thom Hogan posted that digital might not actually be cheaper than film, because you end up buying new bodies so often.

Let's assume that you get 12 shots/year that are "really good" with both digital and film.  And your shooting rates/film costs were such that it was noticeably cheaper.  Now here is the important question:  are your 12 digital shots better than your 12 film shots for any reason in your control (i.e. other than sheer luck.)

In other words, because you shoot more, you may have learned more.  Because you can experiment, you do experiment and come up with shots you never would have with film.   Because you can immediately view an effective 73" wide print by clicking on 100% view, you are now much more critical and careful with your technique.

Now that's just considering the top 12.  But how many additional worthwhile shots do you make because digital is quick and easy?  The record/memory shots of family, friends, and events that you may value more after 30 years than a few artsy shots that are "better" but don't have much sentimental value?

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow