Boltar wrote:

But then you end up with hundreds of paper photographs. A lot
easier to keep them all online for easy
browsing/viewing/slideshow-ing

I think perhaps we have a generational gap here. I *want* paper
photographs. The *last* think I want to do when browsing photos is to
have to wheel out a computer and view them on a screen especially if
I want to take them to friends or family!

Generational gap? Maybe... I'm 52.

If I have a selection of photos to circulate I just burn them to a photo-dvd
and mail them or sit round the TV and watch the DVD

Boltar wrote:
Richard J. wrote:
We're going to visit some friends tomorrow whom we haven't seen for
about 9 months, so I shall put together a "slide show" on the laptop
with a selection of our recent photos. That's a lot more manageable
than picking individual photos out of whatever paper storage you have
and putting them all back in place afterwards. But then, I don't
have

Preparing a slide show takes , I dunno , 15 mins? Dumping a load of
photo albums in a bag probably takes 30 secs.

ACD-See will make any folder into a slide show instantly. I think Windows
XP has a similar feature

Hey guys,
They have contacted me.
And they are now deciding what they should do.
But guys i love Film,
You see film still has the advantage on blow ups.
And for an extra 3 quid i can have a cd made, so i can put them on the
computer.
Digital is great but, for 2000 grand for a digital SLR where a 35mm SLR
with the same features is 400.
Have a great week
James.

"EorJames" wrote in message
oups.com...
Digital is great but, for 2000 grand for a digital SLR where a 35mm SLR
with the same features is 400.

Ho-Hum...
http://www.askdirect.co.uk/uview?cal...Search&id=6254
http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/phot...quicklinx=31K8
Both slightly less than £2,000,000 I think you'll find...
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.

Mrs Redboots typed


And waste 90% of the shots.... at least with a digital, you only need to
print out those shots that you actually want, and you can erase the one
where your thumb went over the viewfinder, and the one where someone
made a silly face at the camera, and the one where your hand shook, and
the one where you didn't use flash when you should have, or did use it
when you shouldn't have, or....

And I don't use a dedicated photo printer - my ordinary computer printer
works fine. Plus, if I want to send a photo to someone else, I don't
have to haul out my scanner and waste time scanning - the photos are
already on my computer, just waiting for me to use them!

90% of the shots I take on film are good enough to share. Getting Boots
to make a CD when I have my films processed means I can send pictures
electronically or print them from my computer.

I'm happy with 35mm...

--
Helen D. Vecht:
Edgware.

"Helen Deborah Vecht" wrote in message
...

I'm happy with 35mm...

That's my kind of woman.

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

EorJames wrote to uk.transport.london on Wed, 30 Mar 2005:

Digital is great but, for 2000 grand for a digital SLR where a 35mm SLR
with the same features is 400.
Have a great week
James.

Well, my digital camera cost me well under £100 - as, actually, did my
35 mm machine, but it's a lot more expensive to run!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 20 March 2005

"Steve Dulieu" wrote in message
...


Ho-Hum...
http://www.askdirect.co.uk/uview?cal...Search&id=6254
http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/phot...quicklinx=31K8
Both slightly less than £2,000,000 I think you'll find...


But these are basic cameras kits; by the time you've added in the price of
the "extras" any serious photographer is going to need (extra memory,
decent flash gun, additional lenses, carrying case, etc) you will have
incurred several hundred pounds worth of additional costs.



"Mrs Redboots" wrote in message
...
Well, my digital camera cost me well under £100 - as, actually, did my
35 mm machine, but it's a lot more expensive to run!
--
Different league.

Axlegrease wrote to uk.transport.london on Thu, 31 Mar 2005:


But these are basic cameras kits; by the time you've added in the price of
the "extras" any serious photographer is going to need (extra memory,
decent flash gun, additional lenses, carrying case, etc) you will have
incurred several hundred pounds worth of additional costs.


Yes, but not two million, which is what the OP said!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 20 March 2005

"Axlegrease" wrote in message
...

"Steve Dulieu" wrote in message
...


Ho-Hum...
http://www.askdirect.co.uk/uview?cal...Search&id=6254

http://www.dabs.com/uk/channels/phot...quicklinx=31K8
Both slightly less than £2,000,000 I think you'll find...


But these are basic cameras kits; by the time you've added in the price of
the "extras" any serious photographer is going to need (extra memory,
decent flash gun, additional lenses, carrying case, etc) you will have
incurred several hundred pounds worth of additional costs.



As you would with 35mm kit, and even several hundred pound is still a touch
less than the 2 million quid that young mister James seems to think a
digital SLR costs...
--
Cheers, Steve.
Change from jealous to sad to reply.