Sorry if my comment offended you. I guess I was snide because it seemed so silly to tell us that in talking about the economics of film we often overlook the fact that you only have to buy a roll or box once, you don't have to keep buying that roll or box over and over again. I thought and continue to think that that's nonsense. Yes, you only have to buy it once - as long as you don't use it for the purpose for which film is usually bought, i.e. to make photographs. Once that's done you have two choices, give up photography or buy more film . . . and more film . . . and more film.
As to my "comparison to film" being the wrong comparison, I compared them because I was responding to your message that told us we were missing something about the economics of film. You never mentioned the darkroom being the "real analog" (analogy?) so I said nothing about it. But if you insist - I own my darkroom hardware but there are other things I need to pay for and continue paying for in order to use it - i.e. paper and chemicals. Similarly, I own my own digital "darkroom" hardware (computer, scanner, printer) but there's something I need to pay for and continue paying for in order to use it - Photoshop (if I participate in Adobe's CC plan which I actually don't plan to do).
But now I suppose you'll tell me that I'm ignoring the fact that once I buy a batch of paper or chemicals I own them and don't have to pay for them again. Which, like your discussion of film economics, is true only if I don't use the paper and chemicals for the purpose for which they were purchased.
Bookmarks