Respectfully, many pros are switching to
digital. Lucas recently was quoted as saying that he can think of no
reason to go back to film (having shot with digital HD). Sports
Photogs at Sydney 2000 were finding that the Canon D-30 gave them as good a
result of freeze-frame action as Provia and Velvia - but without the sometimes
nagging pinhole bubbles in the emulsion.
Basically if you can afford the high end resolution
cameras, you are close to being able to replace film. And shooting on film
really doesn't give you more ways to make money on your work. A lot (if
not most) film these days gets telecine'd so that it can be rebroadcast via HD,
digital Cable, DBS or DVD. Shooting straight to digital removes this
expensive step.
That said, I'm still all in film - because I like
enlarging past the point that the D-30 image holds up, and I can't afford a
scanning back for my 4x5
|
- filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings RogerMillerPhoto
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings kmh
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings stuart
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings stuart
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Derek Clarke
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings RogerMillerPhoto
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Karl Schulmeisters
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Bob Shomler
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Karl Schulmeisters
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Walter Bushell
- RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortco... laurie
- RE: filmscanners: Digital Sho... Derek Clarke
- RE: filmscanners: Digital... laurie
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortco... Derek Clarke
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortco... Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Isaac Crawford