Cotty,
Nope. Not gonna fall into that trap! <g>
Because:
1) It's not a fair game to play it on a computer screen. Film should be seen as a print, as it was intended.
2) I'd probably get it wrong and look foolish.
I didn't say I could tell the difference, BTW. Or that film was better than digital. Just that for B&W, I think film is the way I want to go. That's a totally irrational and possibly unjustifiable position, I realize. But, because it's irrational and unjustifiable, it's also beyond explanation and argument.
<vbg>
cheers, frank
"The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer
From: Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "pentax list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Film or Digital ? (was:Re: OT: More GFM Planning) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 18:52:16 +0100
>I'm only 1/2 joking, of course, but I do think that if 35mm film survives,
>much of it doesn't get axed will be black and white. That's one place where
>there's a certain feel that only film has, IMHO.
Hey Frank, of the three following pics, which is film, and which is digital?
1: Enfants Colliers
<http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/portraits/images/pic23.html>
2: Just a Small One
<http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/reportage/images/pic10.html>
3: Early Birds
<http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/reportage/images/pic5.html>
Cheers, Cotty
___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps _____________________________
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Premium helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines
