On Fri, 12 Mar 2004, Jens Bladt wrote: > Well, I got what I wanted from the tests. What I see is what millions of > people allready know; that digital cameras perform much better in the real > world, than all the facts, figures and calcultations suggest.
> For everyday photographing and for most people it's pointless to invest in a > lot of film, a bulky and expensive SLR outfit, a 1000$+ filmscanner as well > as a computer in order to make photograpshs, that can easily be made with a > modern, digital camera that cost less than one of the four mentioned > objects. If you'll have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete > with ditital images, not a lot of people will want to. I agree that digital cameras are usually underrated and that many tend to produce good photos up to 8x10, but I don't really see the point of your second paragraph. For everyday photography, people just need film and a camera... why would they need a $1000+ scanner and computer? You seem to be making the assumption that people intend to scan all of their prints, but that's a wildly general statement. Why would you have to make expensive scans of every frame to compete with digital images? Again, for most people the object is to get prints, not scans. I get prints made from my film cameras, and if I scan the negs at all it's to view them on a computer monitor, which mean that a cheap low-res scan will more than suffice. The majority of film photographers does not keep both negatives and high-res scans for the archives. That being said, I agree that digital cameras produce prints up to 8x10 that are perfectly acceptable for the majority of people who take pictures. chris
