|Subject: Re: Digital photography|
As an amateur photographer who is stepping into digital photography I want to add a few points to the discussion.
First, do not assume that copying photos to a CD-Rom disk is archieving the photos. The longevity of these disks has not been proven beyond 5-7 years. Often, the disks will physically deteriorate before that time. There are several brands of disk (usually called GOLD) that claim to have a much longer life. However, they are more expensive.
Second, you will have to spend time and money saving the photos, printing the photos and doing other tasks. It's a lot more work than simply dropping the film off at the 1 hour lab while you shop.
Third, what makes sense for professionals may not make sense for the traveling amatuer. A pro may be able to justify paying $2000 to $5000 for a new digital SLR every few years. Digital may have cost and competitive advantages for the professional. But, can you justify that cost in your travel budget? You can upgrade a film camera simply by purchasing the latest improved film. Digital cameras require you to purchase a new camera, usually for hundreds if not thousands of dollars.
I have chose the hybred route for the time being. I shoot film, then scan and print it. As some point I will probably go totally digital, but I think that will take a few more years.
There is a certain religious ferver to the film vs. digital debate that forgets that each situation is unique. Whatever you do make sure it is right for you.
Paul Greater Seattle