On 3 Aug 2004 at 0:30, David Miers wrote: > Yea, I know, this has been beat to death, but.... > > > http://www.vividlight.com/articles/1513.htm > > Warning...*istD owners shouldn't look...lol.
Hi Dave, Articles of this ilk rear their heads every so often, sure we need to be kept aware of the potential for file loss and the potential for media failure and redundancy but unfortunately a crucial component of the argument is missing. Quoting the final paragraph of the cited article: " I'm not recommending against digital photography. Far from it. I'm captivated by what you can do with digital. But just as when weighing 35mm against medium format you should know the real pros and cons of film vs. digital when deciding on what format to shoot." Pity he makes no mention of the potential state of those shoeboxes full of silver-fish eaten stained and mould damaged prints not to mention the missing scratched, folded and otherwise unprintable negs. All media has limitations, if you want the best out of anything you have to exercise current best storage/file maintenance practice to ensure its longevity its not rocket science (well not at the user end anyhow). In any case I'm sure you will also hear the other arguments which go something like; who will care when you are gone anyhow? (not that I agree entirely with this stance either but it's a valid perspective :-) Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
