If indeed there is a cost adavntage to digital, I don't seem to be finding it. So far the learning curve from shooting film has been a major investment. My question is this, now that i have switched to digital (and in the process from Nikon to Canon), how do I make it pay any better? I started my digital endeavor with a meagre 300d and have also aquired a 10D since (i hope soon to add the much anticipated MkII as the main stay). I have found, thus far, the initial cost of equipment is fairly high as compared to film bodies. This is only the begining and now I am realizing the other cost.... the huge amount of time spent doing: 1) Up/down loading images 2) Adjustments and saving from raw in PS CS (never had to 'write actions' before) 3) Test prints which only serve to frustrate when the 'real prints' come back from the lab with differing colors/exposure. 4) Visits with clients to show them how to view their digital proofs 5) Playing (which is a great source of fun and experimentation that would otherwise not be as available to me) with the 'works of art'! 6) Setting up shots (and this may just be the learining curve) on location. WB and ISO are the favorite forgets, though WB is a non issue with RAW. 7) Burning DVD's and such many times These are the obvious things that inccur the other cost. I wonder if this is worth the effort. Any one have any thoughts - advice - complaints - praises etc. of how going digital is, or can be, a real cost advantage? Thanks to every one here, BTW, for all the other questions that have been so thought provocing.