Craig Callahan wrote:
> Furthermore, so long as digital and computer technology
> continues to evolve, the
> quality of film scans will continue to improve, so that ten
> years from now I
> will probably be able to get a much better digital image from
> my current
> negatives and slides than I can now, whereas if I were using
> a digital camera,
> my photos would be no better in five, ten, or twenty years
> than they are today.
> For me anyway, having a film original and the potential for
> ever-improving scans of those originals is the best of both worlds.
I am both a press photographer and a hobbyist. A very short time ago when
resolutions were small, I was a staunch supporter of chemical photography.
It's still all I own today. In concept, you are correct in everything
written. However, it recently occurred to me that a 6 MP image approaches
the resolution of film. Hence, as scanners get better (I'm looking forward
to the Nikon 4000) the amount of new information obtained from the film will
follow diminishing increases.
For me, the epiphany came when I realized that within a few more years we
will be buying 10-40 MP cameras. Think of Moore's Law in terms of digital
photography. At this point, IMAGE QUALITY is blowing film away and might
kill medium format, being at its rival. Imagine taking the equivalent to a
6x9cm image with the flexibility and convenience of an EOS camera! Digital
images don't have scanning defects either.
Yes, photojournalists are the main users of digital now. But not for long.
Myself, I'm looking forward to sharpening my skills with the immediate
feedback loop of digital review right on the sidelines.
Dave Buyens
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
