on 17.01.03 13:08, P�l Jensen at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > But Michael isn't doing that. He claim to be performing empirical test proving > that digital is better than film in every respect (his own words) but this > isn't true at all. I agree with you Pal. There is more than costs in comparison between analogue and digital. Let's take projection presentations. Using ~200$ class dia-projector, you can achieve almost full resolution and optical density etc. of your slides on the screen. To do this with digital you have to buy ~1500$ LCD projector, which will give you only about 800000 pixels (1024x768 resolution). And we can not forgive that CCD and CMOS sensor has very narrow exposure latitude - worse than slide film, not to mention negatives, so you have more problems to take properly exposed photos with digital in difficult lightning.
These two technologies has their "pros" and "cons", you can not simply say "digital is better!". You just buy what is better suited for your needs. As a wedding photographer I would afraid to buy digital, because of the narrow exposure latitude - too much risk of getting unproperply exposed shots - and you can't simply repeat wedding... -- Best Regards Sylwek
