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
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!
--
"Mrs Redboots"
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/
Website updated 20 March 2005

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

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