>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.
I gave up on my chemical darkroom about a year ago, the benefits of digital
had finally well and truly outweighed the benefits of chemical, this is
true in particular for colour - Cibrachrome is time consuming, expensive
and the chemicals are extremely toxic - the output I get from a $400
printer is phenomenal, the longevity of these prints is currently my
biggest issue but I think they also suffer from the same drawback as
current digital cameras, which even more than sheer number of pixels is
dynamic range, the brights and darks are even more tricky for digital
cameras than film. I expect that digital will start beating traditional
film in a few years time by most measures, but there will always be certain
effects that simply cannot be achieved in same way or with the same result
as traditional film..
its a good time to be alive and watch evolution happen in front of our eyes...
john pattenden
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
