Digital BW, The Print

Andre writes:

> Add the cost of an mf scanner and you're
> there a lot faster.

I was talking 35mm.  MF is so far ahead of digital that it's not conceivable
to me that a 35mm digital SLR could substitute for a 6x6 negative.  And
digital backs for MF cost more like $23,000, for just a partial frame, so
the calculations change again.

> Not to mention time used for scanning that
> could be used for promoting/selling or whatever.

Time spent scanning is minimal already.  Most time in front of the PC is
spent editing photos, not scanning them; and that does not go away with
digital.

> Plus whatever one can get for it's
> film camera gear and the conversion
> to digital is easier.

The conversion is also unnecessary.