Both Shel and Malcolm have not mentioned the combination of film and digital which I find most convenient - shoot on film and have it scanned at the time of development. I may be lucky in having a very high-quality one-hour lab within two minutes drive (or ten-minutes walking!) of where I both live and work, but I would urge those who want the best of both to seek out such a lab. I will probably get the *ist D (or it's successor) within the next twelve months, but at the moment I don't need to have a digital camera in order to have good quality scans available of every frame I shoot (in colour negative, anyway) very quickly. If I need higher resolution scans than those provided by the lab, then I can make them myself from the negatives in a reasonable amount of time, and I do have the assurance that I have all the information in the scene captured by the camera, without having to worry about jpg-resolution or compression ratios at the time I take the shot. I have Photoshop 5LE, Irfanview, VueproPrint and VueScan for image manipulation, and a couple of built-in XP tools as well. For cataloguing, I have my self-written database which allows me immediate access to the scans, whether on the hard drive or a CD, and simple, but powerful and rapid, search facilities if I need to find a particular shot or group of shots.
John Coyle Brisbane, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 5:57 AM Subject: RE: A quick *ist D comment. > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > 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. > > Of course we see the issue from different ends of photographic use. In many > ways I feel I have been pushed towards the digital age and it doesn't suit > me. I thought it would, but if you saw the level in technology I own > (myself) you would undoubtedly agree with me - my mobile 'phone is huge, but > as it still does the job.... > > Most of my friends, fellow school parents and family know I have liked > photography from an early age. Some of them have exchanged photos via > digital cameras for a good while (mostly point & shoot) and have expected me > to be at the front of the line doing this. Having been a life long Pentax > user, I hung out for their DSLR. I like B&W prints and slides. Colour print > has never been a favourite of mine (not entirely true, when I found out how > good B&W was, I lost most of my interest in colour prints). Every time I > pick up a camera, it's a moment of relaxation. I enjoy it, no more, no less. > > Do I love what the *ist D can do? Yes. I think digital more than has it's > uses, but do I like using it as much as an MX, 67 or LX, no. > > There is this thing about making things smaller and lighter I don't like. If > I want small, I can use a film Pentax (MX or ME Super is good) with a 40mm > lens, which is 'hold able' and fits in a pocket with ease. As I am 6' 2" and > 18 stone, I really don't want things made smaller (not even me (!) before > someone says something!). I can use my film cameras without any problems. If > Pentax made a 67 in digital form the same size and shape as it's film format > equivalent, I would be delighted. Frankly, this desire to reduce the size of > camera results in too many operational buttons in a limited amount of space. > Now I know there are much bigger people than me here, but I find this > constricting and off-putting. > > > 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. > > I have never found a good 1-hour lab, but I can't say I've tried that hard. > That's not to say they don't exist near me. But now, I don't even need to > try. Both the developers I use are 100s of miles away, which both give > excellent results for either slide or B&W, so I use the post. I don't have > the time constraints (anymore) and I don't mind the wait. > > > 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. > > Noted. > > > 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. > > Me too, but for entirely different reasons, even though I'm pleased we have > a digital Pentax camera. > > I love to read different opinions. > > Malcolm > > > >
