TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-01 > 0978471853


From: Greg Surratt <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Digital Cameras & Genealogy
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2001 16:44:13 -0500
References: <c7.52703e2.278207a9@cs.com> <d3625tc498muekagrm9dpppse88nlq62po@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <d3625tc498muekagrm9dpppse88nlq62po@4ax.com>


On Mon, 01 Jan 2001 19:14:18 -0500, Teresa wrote:

>Thank you so much. It sounds like you are describing exactly what I will need. To spend most of my money on batteries. <G> I have several large family cemeteries, in which I know who everyone in the cemetery is, but in the past have only done the main people due to photo processing costs. I would love to do the whole cemetery so that I would have everyone, and so that I could preserve it. I have seen too many cemeteries lost to vandals. You post really helped me to understand what I am looking for, so that when I finally go shopping, I will at least be able to ask intelligent questions.
>Teresa

I ended up spending $48 dollars for 4 sets of batteries at $12 per
set, plus a charger. Not using rechargeables would get REAL expensive
REAL fast.

As a cost comparison between the digital camera and regular film
processing, we have already paid for the camera in film processing
savings. I managed to take trips to Arizona, Missouri, Massachusetts
and several down to North Carolina last year before I bought the
camera. We typically spent a day shooting very selective gravemarkers
and then took the film to Wal-Mart for one hour developing that
evening at an average of $40 per day (5 rolls at 25 shots per roll)
over a two or three week period.

Since we got the camera, I've not spent a dime on processing (I have
to find another reason to go to Wal-Mart now). We took a couple more
trips to North Carolina and shot over 1200 pictures each time. At 40
cents per picture for film and processing costs, that was a
significant savings and I have more information than I know what to do
with.


and Fran said, in another thread:

>By the way, Greg, you have your mail program set to put your address in the
>Reply To, rather than having .
>
>Fran

Yep, and I thought I fixed it and ended up sending messages to myself.
:(

Trying again

Greg

This thread: