> Simple Tom, in the end the result you see is in each case > produced from a digital file. One is from the camera the > other from a scan. Granted you will gain more information > from the film when properly scanned but the result in doing > so is digital. Yes, there are better means to print than > traditional, but doing so again requires the Analog media of > film to be transformed to a digital file in order to accomplish this. > > Peter K
But whether or not a digital file is used. When most people think of the question: analog vs. digital, they are thinking analog (film) original (a la 35 mm) vs. digital original (D60, etc.). Whether or not the end result is a print from a digital file, there is a world of difference between film originals and digital originals when it comes to factors such as film grain, digital noise, convenience, developing costs, scanning costs, startup costs, etc. To say, "it's all digital" just ignores the basic question, "should one switch to a digital camera or stay with a film camera, using scanners as necessary." Tom D. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
