Rob Studdert wrote: > > On 26 Jan 2003 at 5:10, Keith Whaley wrote: > > > Folks are starting to seriously take sides, instead of just having > > casual opinions... > > The apparent polarization is a function of inappropriate comparison methods.
That may VERY well be, sir. I am prepared to allow for that. I'm still in a wait and see mode. But, it's getting a LOT more exciting now, because the differences that separated film and digital images, that used to be huge and glaringly obvious are now getting smaller and smaller, and in some instances the dividing line is not just indistinct but invisible... <g> I think we're close to the point where once you blow away the chaff, you'll be able to find areas where digital is capable of and actually does more than equal 90% of all film efforts. I have to discount the extra special super fine grain B&W films out there, and special high resolution lenses as being not in the mainstream, and as such not very likely to be used by your average, or even most photographers. All of which is to say, yes, I believe the day is imminent or has in some way arrived, but to think that it not only can but will replace film, well, that day is FAR off! Up to now, it's been pretty much established that digital is capable of meeting 90% of all normal expectations. But will it _replace_ film soon? No way. Let's SEE those more appropriate comparison methods. I'll be among the first to consider them. keith whaley > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 > UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications.html
