I like digi as well. The immediacy for family snaps, quick turnaround, and ease of processing are all benefits. I wish that, like the woman in the article said, I could just toss my film canister in the air, grab some lunch, and come back to a nicely done contact sheet.
I suppose the immediacy depends a bit on one's work flow. If there's a good one-hour lab nearby, then dropping off the film and scanning it when you return from your errands is not much of a lag time. If you're a person who uses the digi and then goes down to a lab to have the results printed, it's really no different wrt time as in the example above. Since most of us have appropriate editing programs, for us - the connected, on line people - there's a big savings in time. Of course, not everyone has the equipment and software to make a purely digital workflow possible. >From the pov of quality - my pov, what's important to me - I believe that film wins hands down, yet I'm very happy that the digital option exists. Malcolm Smith wrote: > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/25/technology/circuits/25came.html > > > > Free and easy registration may be required if you're not > > already a member of the NY Times site. > > An interesting article, thanks for the link. > > As you have probably gathered, the Smith family falls into two groups with > digital and film preference. I fit the film category. On my own. I have seen > how much people like access to immediate results and without doubt, it must > be the camera to use for moments as Christmas and school plays etc. > > For me, I am pleased we bought the *ist D, as it has renewed my wife's > interest in photography and so far, everything points to what I wanted to > replace - colour print film. I still like the feel of a roll of film and > there can no longer be any issue of immediate processing required. A win, > win situation here indeed. > > Malcolm
