VCF suggestions...

[Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner]

It was thus said that the Great Jules Richardson once stated:
> 
> On Fri, 2005-08-05 at 11:32 +0200, Jochen Kunz wrote:
> > The question is not analog vs. digital photography. The question is when
> > to use what of those two mediums. They are entirely different mediums,
> > each with its special strengths and weakneses.
> 
> One thing I found when travelling is that it's much nicer to have a
> conventional analogue film camera vs. digital. It's easy to get hold of
> film (and batteries if needed) pretty much anywhere, but with digital
> you have to worry about being able to recharge the camera batteries,
> finding somewhere to download data off the camera every so often (or
> take enough CF cards with you to cover the amount of photos you're
> likely to take) etc.

  I found the opposite.  I recently took a trip to Las Vegas and over five
days took 426 photos.  Assuming I used 36-picture rolls of 35mm film, that
would have been 12 canisters, and again assuming I spent $10 total for each
canister (film + developing) I would have spent $120---instead I spent about
$10 for a package of AA batteries (since I didn't want to have to worry
about rechargables during the trip).  

  I did have my laptop and once or twice a day I would dump the pictures
from the camera.  Just this year alone I've taken enough pictures (over
1100) to justify the price of the camera (which I got two years ago).  

  However, I would *still* love to use my 35mm SLR, but compared to my
digital, it's not really cost effective anymore (at least, at my level of
ability, and besides, the digital camera I can fit into my pocket and take
everywhere with me---I really can't do with with my SLR).

  -spc (In fact, I think I've taken more photographs in the last two months
	than I did in two semesters of photography in college ... )