Ken:
You wrote: "Besides, in the grand scheme of things, that $219 was a
fraction of the cost of the trip." Very true. As it was our anniversary,
I'm only too well aware of the cost.
Really, I'm not used to having that many films (actually 17) to process
at the same time. It's just that Costco would have been significantly
cheaper (about half the cost of digital). Sigh...
Martin
-----Original Message-----
From: Ken Norton [mailto:ken@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2010 3:17 PM
To: Olympus Camera Discussion
Subject: Re: [OM] OM trip report - The Sunshine State -
> The lab I used worked out at approx $20 per roll (4x6 prints, plus the
> scans), though I got a bulk discount. Costco was about half that. I
> was not happy with Walmart scans the last time I used them. However,
> they did scan half-frame without a murmur.
$300 for the 15 rolls and that included the prints. Assuming 36 exposure
rolls that's 55 cents per print. Had you shot the same amount using
digital, that would have been around 15 cents per shot. Digital would
cost you $81. Difference of $219.
You couldn't buy a decent camera for $219 that would have been as
enjoyable to shoot.
Besides, in the grand scheme of things, that $219 was a fraction of the
cost of the trip.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|