I am putting my reply in between the lines...
On Sun, 26 Oct 2003 00:20:34 -0600 "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
For me, the function of a digital camera, whether an SLR or otherwise, is to
take advantage of the new photofinishing technology.
Scanning film for digital printing is, to my mind, a fools endeavor.
I suppose that in a sense of ultimate technological solution this is correct. I still maintain that buying a second hand Epson 2450 for $120 and scanning my negatives and slides, and finally, post processing them for digital printing later is way better __for me__ than anything else except perhaps trying to save money for *istD. Furthermore, I think that shelling out, say $500 for 5MP digicam is not really a solution.
Just yesterday, my wife's co-worker came with her little 3MP digicam full of pictures she brought from Spain. Almost all of her attempts to shoot architecture failed miserably, partly because of the lens restrictions...
The process of scanning negatives creates more problems than it solves.
Please bear in mind that this is coming from someone who is pretty handy on the darkroom.
I suppose it was the analog darkroom you meant <grin>... I am yet to shoot my second TMAX so that I can try film processing myself... You know, I've been asked to bring two films so that chemicals, time, and effort would not be wasted...
Virtually all new photo lab equipment is using digital printing technology.
So far, I have found the combination of a good digital camera and digital to
photo paper printing to be far superior to anything I have been able to get
via scanned negatives or slides.
The entire industry is going in this direction.
This is the impression that seems to be coming onto us from all over the place.
Kodak has indicated that they are cutting back on film R&D, and have, in fact, announced that their consumer and professional film divisions are being combined.
It could be that for a short period of time then, consumer films of Kodak would become somewhat better because of involvement of professional division people <grin>... But then of course, it will decline surely, and even may be not so slowly...
Digital does look different from film, of this there is no doubt. Whether it is better or worse, I have no opinion.
It's just different. I like it for some things, for others, I prefer film.
I wish others had similar opinions. But then traffic would be much lighter on PDML <grin>.
I tend to agree with Mr. Robb <g> here. I do hope however that 35 mm b/w film will survive.
For me, digital will most likely replace 35mm colour negative film for just about everything I shoot neg film for, and I expect I am in a very large demographic in this regard.
If only digital of acceptable quality were more affordable... Then we would be experiencing explosion of that very demographic <grin>...
For most of my needs, the 6mp sensor is just fine, thank you very much, and I am quite pleased that the ist D suits me so well.
On my level, I've been seeing wonderful, artful photographs made even with 3MP cameras. Indeed, first comes the photographer, next comes the lens, and then comes the camera.
Ultimately, I am putting this message I've just answered to my knowledge base...
Enjoy! (film while you can, and digital if you have it <VBG>)
Boris
_____ "Антивирус Касперского Personal Pro + Антихакер по специальной цене $85" http://www.kaspersky.ru/offer/
