Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : WDC/Sandisk Corporation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve 667 who wrote (24570)	1/16/2004 3:38:59 PM
From: Art Bechhoefer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 60323

35mm v flash: The cost of 36 exposure 35mm color film plus film processing is less expensive than, say, a 32 mb flash card, but not much less. If you get prints with the film processing, then the cost would be greater, especially if some of the photos aren't worth printing. If you are using color negative film, it's going to be difficult to judge your photos without making prints, so in the end, you would likely be better off with digital. The moment you delete digital images and reuse the card for additional shots, you are then paying less for digital. In my own case, I take roughly 500 photos a year, of which maybe 200 are worth keeping, and only 50 or so get printed. I've cut my photo costs drastically by switching to digital, and then I've eaten up all the savings by buying a higher resolution digital camera. Ah, progress! Art

To: Steve 667 who wrote (24570)	1/20/2004 8:16:43 AM
From: Tumbleweed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60323

I said; "Someone recently pointed out that flash memory is now cheaper than 35mm film, ie if you threw away the flash memory after you had developed your pictures, as with film, it would still be cheaper. You said; That's a stretch! You are correct, I just had a look myself, seems that flash is about 2x - 3x the cost at the moment based purely on pictures taken. OTOH if you reckon that on any given roll some percentage of the pictures are no good, whereas nearly all your digital pictures should be good, then flash probably is cheaper now per 'keeper'. I used to reckon on 5 or 6 'keepers' from a roll. That would make flash 1/2 the cost of film :-) Tw