Digital BW, The Print

Editor P.O.V. Image Service wrote:
> I never understood that perspective... FILM is/was absolutely the 
> cheapest component of the entire process..  Every prof and every editor 
> I ever knew said essentially the same thing "film is cheap - shoot MORE 
> not less"..

That works fine when someone else is picking up the time for our
extra film and film processing costs. But when we're shooting for
ourselves, it might be an altogether different story.

On my last holiday, for example, if I wasn't shooting digital
but instead shooting film, and if I shot the same amount of
frame, the total cost of just film and film processing would
have come to over $2000. And if I made a habit of doing 
that when I was shooting film, well, the bank would have
soon been calling because I was missing mortgage payments.

So while "film is cheap", if you enough shooting and you're
picking up the tab yourself, those costs can soon add up to
a serious chunk of change.

Or so my wife has pointed out.  :-)

CJ