Re: Re: Re: MINERAL PHOTOGRAPHY
I think that somehow we got our wires crossed on the film costs vs. digital costs. It seems to me that film is the more EXPENSIVE route to go. How many shots - even at the highest resolution - can one put on disk or DVD compared to a 36 roll of film frames? Isn't it typical to load a disk/DVD with like 50 to a hundred images before "reloading? I actually don't know, but my sense is that to store and keep digital images is much cheaper than to do the same with film.
Now, regarding the cost of producing prints or slides from film vs. the same from disk/DVD it may be true that digital is more expensive because high resolution digital storage disk/DVD space is more expensive "per unit of area" than film. I think (but do not know for sure) that the "information density" on film is greater than on digital storage media. At least this seems to make sense than me.
Regarding medium format film, I meant exactly what you wrote: 2.25 inch by 2.25imnch film frames. "Large format" cameras - pricier yet... - use 5"X5" film frames.
I hope that the above clears things up - but fear it may not have... :~}
From Alan - June 09, 2007 at 18:44:04