I agree. My experience is similar. But you say you get 282 exposures shooting RAW. I get 72 on a 1 gig card. Are you using a 4 gig card? If so, I'm jealous <vbg>/
Paul
On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:35 PM, Herb Chong wrote:
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 ofchoice 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.
