> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Green > Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 6:16 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: EOS Digital vs Film discussion > > > While I can appreciate why a Photo Journalist would find a Digital SLR > essential, why do so many of us amateurs want one? > > How many have replaced shooting Transparency with Digital, and why? > > Transparencies can be projected with a relatively cheap 35mm > projector. XGA > and better projectors are far more expensive, and do not give the > resolution > of a 6MP image. I can, therefore, only assume that the advantage > of digital > is for making prints on the home PC. While this should give a > better result > than scanning in slides (or negatives), and with less work, it > means that we > really want a digital to replace negative film. CF cards or CDs can always > be taken in to your local processor for a set of 6x4 prints, if > that is what > you > want. > > I had been intending to buy a film scanner this year, but as a 10D body is > only twice the cost of a Canon FS4000, and the ratio is reducing all the > time, I shall put the decision off for a while yet, although the > probability > of going for a Digital SLR is increasing all the time. > If I shoot slides, however then I lose the opportunity of scanning any of > them. So either I don't shoot film, and go completely digital, or > buy a Film > Scanner as well as a Digital SLR. > > I see that many on the list have already claimed that they don't > shoot film > any more, since going digital. This I can well understand, and I am sure > that I shall eventually follow suit, but it does mean that > transparency film > will be more likely to disappear from the shelves that much earlier. > > Cheers > > Keith >
Hi Keith, I have! I shoot motor sports and field sports and LOTS of kids and people. I used to shoot trannys almost exclusively for my own images and scan them on my Polaroid SS4000 but I don't anymore. A really good reason for me to forgo film is the cost of processing and film not to mention my electricity bill to keep a freezer running 24X7. I generally prefer and shoot Kodak pro films and buy a lot of when I can find it cheap, I seal it up and drop it in the deep freezer I have just for film. A roll of tranny film and processing generally comes to about $12 or so depending on the film stock when processed at my local E6 lab (A&I). If shooting for prints and using a professional C-41 lab like A&I, even buying film at rock bottom prices a roll of film processed and proofed represents about $15 a roll. I shoot something like 100-200 rolls a year if I'm careful with it so lets call it about only 150 rolls at $13 to process it. This comes to something like $1,950 a year if I'm careful and don't shoot as freely as I might if a client was paying the lab's E6 or C-41 bill. This number also excludes the cost of having those custom prints made that I like to have and give as gifts, this can come to another $500-$1,000 a year depending on who got married etc.. My guess is that in one, maybe two years (I bought a LOT of other stuff for digital shooting that I'm including), I will have paid for my EOS 1D body and all the other stuff I needed to go digital. I will also have gained tremendous control over the quality of prints I have output at the digital bureau and I will have much better images to show for of my work. To answer your question I think that professional tranny films are already getting harder to find. It will take a while yet but IMO it seems inevitable that the first victims of the trend to digital will be pro films followed by slide films and then slower high quality consumer films. Cheers/Chip * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
