> Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2003 13:05:51 -0000 > From: "Bob Talbot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Re: EOS 70-200 IS effective range > > A 1Ds for the current price of a 10D: I'd buy one like a shot. > > Frankly, I'd even buy a 10D if it's sensor was full frame (or even > slightly less than full frame as long as the vertical dimension was > 24mm) with the same number of poxels just bigger. > > Film produces brilliant results for my purposes, it's cheaper for my > purposes, so for now I don't need to change. > > Bob >
There is still a compromise alternative: having high-res drum scans made from film. It seems to me that careful use of 100 and 50 speed film still has some advantages over digital bodies for the biggest enlargements. Many of the greats (e.g. the late Galen Rowell) used film and had scans of film made in order to facilitate digital reproduction of their best images. It's not as convenient as all-digital workflow, but for those prize film images requiring digital version, it's a way to move into the digital world while working with familiar materials. Given the typical KPR (pronounced "keeper") ratio (Keepers Per Roll) of 1 or 2 images, drums scans from a reputable lab are not unreasonable for the small percentage of images requiring it. I've been a digital body hold-out so far, too, but the lure of immediate feedback beckons. My plan: a 10D body to supplement my film bodies. After that, I'll probably shoot primarily digital, but will always have at least a light-weight digital body (i.e. Rebel-class) on a shoot to make good use of my 20 - 35 zoom for ultra-wide angle (until a sub-$1500 full frame digital comes along). As a side note, I was at my local camera store yesterday to drop off film for processing, and listened to some x-mas shopper conversations with sales people at the "digital" counter. Teen-ager and her father were looking at a Digital Rebel and 18-55 lens. Neither seemed to know much about photography, and they were looking at a camera for her to take to college next year. Girl & father couldn't understand why, for $500 more, the Digital Rebel could not 1) show image on LCD for framing a shot like digital P&S cameras and 2) make video clips like a digital P&S. I expelled an elitist sigh and reflected on the introduction of the first inexpensive auto-exposure SLRs like the Canon AE-1. Some wag wrote of them, "never have so many bad pictures been so well exposed". I can't help but think of affordable digital cameras and paraphrase his words: "never have so many bad pictures been made so quickly". I also recently was asked to review an acquaintance's proofs of her children done for her by a local "professional". For a $400 sitting fee she paid, the woman felt vaguely that she wasn't thrilled with the proofs and was uncomfortable paying the per-print fees. No wonder! I pointed out the stark, unflattering shadows, the unbalanced ambient and strobe light, and the cluttered foregrounds and backgrounds. "I never noticed that" she told me. I would have expected better from a "pro". My friends, the perceived value of professional photography is dropping; Philistines are at the gate; price is often a primary motivator. We must strive to excel at our work, educate consumers of photographs about quality, and teach young people to appreciate the art and craft of photography. Enough from my elitist soap-box for today, David Heller [EMAIL PROTECTED] * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
