I don't think you are missing anything.
Digital does not have the same exposure latitude as film, I think it is slightly less than slide film - meaning you have to be more accurate with your exposures. This is balanced by the easier workflow with digital, whereby you can review a pic straight away and make adjustments accordingly/look at the histogram.
The digital workflow is a lot more forgiving generally, and a lot easier therefore to get good exposures. Hence I think a lot of peoples enthusiasm for it. Although having said that you probably delete just as many bad pics but as they are only files you forget about it.!
Personally I still prefer image quality from film over digital, and for MF there is currently no contest, unless you can afford the 20,000 pro digital film backs. Quite how you project your digital files onto a wall is also something a lot of people have overlooked.
The writing is on the all but film ain't dead yet, not by a long run. There are just too many film cameras out there still for it to be otherwise.
Antonio.
On 10 Jul 2004, at 15:53, Don Sanderson wrote:
This statement somewhat confuses me.
A few days ago I asked about the high contrast abilities of digital versus
film.
The opinion seemed to be that digital was similar to slide film in these
situations.
This led me to believe that negative film would be superior to digital when
in high contrast lighting.
The statement below seems to be at odds with that idea, what am I missing?
Don
<snip>-----Original Message----- From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 8:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film Is Dead / A Contrary View
However, digital is a perfect replacement for color neg film, and it will
eventually bebetter than any color neg film MF or smaller. But long live BW. I would
not be happy without it.
Paul
