Mrs Redboots wrote:
Boltar wrote to uk.transport.london on Tue, 29 Mar 2005:


Mrs Redboots wrote:
Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it????

Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and
then
have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card
down
a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm
camera
and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed.

And waste 90% of the shots.... at least with a digital, you only need
to

You speak for yourself there I think

And I don't use a dedicated photo printer - my ordinary computer
printer

I think my ordinary computer printer (a dot matrix) might not *quite*
be up to the job. So I'd still have to shell out on a photo printer.
Besides , compared to "proper" film , something done on a laser or
inkjet
looks rubbish anyway.

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!

Couldn't care less about that , never send pictures in emails.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and
then
have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down
a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera
and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed.

For my purposes, being constrained to 24, 36 (or whatever) pictures in a day
would be the limiting factor. I am quite often known to take 150-200+ photos
in one day with my digital camera!

D.

"David Splett" wrote in message
...
"Boltar" wrote in message
oups.com...
Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and
then
have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down
a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm camera
and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed.

For my purposes, being constrained to 24, 36 (or whatever) pictures in a
day would be the limiting factor. I am quite often known to take 150-200+
photos in one day with my digital camera!


There is a way to overcome that film constraint. Buy some more and change
them when used up. There is no law (statutory, physical, economic or other)
that says "Thou shalt use only one film per day".

Boltar wrote:
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it????

Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and
then
have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card down
a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm
camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed.

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

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
There is a way to overcome that film constraint. Buy some more and change
them when used up. There is no law (statutory, physical, economic or
other) that says "Thou shalt use only one film per day".

Indeed. But the cost of developing 200 photos every week would be
prohibitive. The point I was making that you can take *many* more photos
with a DC. I don't think twice about photographing something, whereas with
35mm there would be things I simply wouldn't bother to photograph.

(Also, storing photos electronically uses up a lot less space than as
prints!).

Stimpy wrote:
Boltar wrote:
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it????

Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera and
then
have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card
down
a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good 35mm
camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed.

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!

B2003

Boltar wrote:
Stimpy wrote:
Boltar wrote:
Mrs Redboots wrote:
Film? Goodness, how quaint! Anybody else still use it????

Yup. Why should I pay 200 quid for a half decent digital camera
and then
have to fork out for a photo printer or just take the memory card
down a developers anyway when I can keep using my perfectly good
35mm camera and get a free film whenever I get my shots developed.

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!

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
to "wheel out" a computer because it's there already as part of the
environment I live in, just like the fridge or the TV.

It's not necessarily a generational thing. I'm old enough to remember
going to school on ST buses and ex-LSWR 1916-vintage EMUs.
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)

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.

to "wheel out" a computer because it's there already as part of the
environment I live in, just like the fridge or the TV.

Well not everyone has one funnily enough and not everyone wants to
invest
a large sum of money in a laptop (especially since desktops are cheaper
and have better perfomance) just to cart some photos around. Plus you
can just hand a photo album to someone and go do something else , you
don't have to operate it or teach them how to operate it themselves
just
so they can view some photos. Seems like technology for its own sake to
me but everyone has their point of view. *shrug*

B2003

On 24 Mar 2005 07:06:37 -0800, "EorJames"
wrote:

So please if you live up north or cant get near london please use my
service my website which is now up and running.
www.londonundergroundphotostop.bravehost.com

Now up and running? "This URL is Not Currently in Use"

Perhaps now you might realise why people make an issue of spelling!

--
Cheers,

Jason.

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?

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

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!

My mother is nearer 80 than 70 and adores her digital camera! Okay, she
did invest in a dedicated printer, but she loves being in control of
which shots she prints, etc. Plus not having to buy expensive films,
and then spend more money having them developed.....
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 20 March 2005