two weekends ago, i went on vacation, taking my last 17 rolls of film with me and a film body along with the *istD. try as i might, there were very few occasions where it was worth using the film body. whenever the lighting was tricky, i would use the *istD and take the shot to verify exposure. if the light was too contrasty, i would take some digital exposures at 1 or 1.5 stop intervals for later blending.
i now have 3 exposed rolls of Velvia that i probably won't process for several months because it's a hassle to get to the custom lab i like to use. all of the compositions are duplicated with the *istD. i was able to review them when necessary when i took them and then later that night on the laptop. mostly i never review my shots in the field unless i think i have to make some exposure adjustments. i figure i review about 10-20% of my exposures in the field and that is only to check the histogram. the biggest hassle about using film again after nearly a year of not using film is having to change after only 36 exposures. even shooting RAW, i get 282 exposures without having to change memory cards. Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 1:33 PM Subject: Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers > Frank pretty much nailed it. The demise of film is strictly a matter of choice from amateur to pro. I was certain that I would continue to use film after I bought an *istD. And I keep telling myself that I have to shoot some medium format and some 4x5, but I have to face up to the facts: I haven't shot any film in the last 6 months. It just seems that for everything I do, digital is a logical choice.
