Perhaps you're misreading that message. I think what Ken means by "having control over your photographic output" is that the image goes right from camera RAW to the computer. No one else touches it. It's much like shooting BW and doing all the processing yourself. But it's generally much simpler and, of course, you're color enabled. In regard to citing the number of images, Ken was merely pointing out that he'd saved a lot of cash by shooting those 1400 images on digital. Knowing Ken, I suspect he would have shot 1400 on film if he didn't go digital. It was an arctic shoot and a rare opportunity. He's a great photographer, and his opinions are always well thought out.
Paul
On Oct 14, 2004, at 10:57 PM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
That's .... well, I was gonna say something nasty but thought better of
it, so I'll just ask, what makes you say that one can't have control over
their output unless one uses digital. And what the heck is it with so many
of you digi people that you seemingly MUST comment on how many hundreds of
exposures you make?
Shel
computer,[Original Message] From: Kenneth Waller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
If you're not interested in digital optimization of images on thethen by all means go out and get the MZ-S, a wonderful film camera. Ifthe
however you're interested in having control over your photographic output,
then I recommend you seriously consider digital. I recently have startedmove into digital, after shooting slides for years, I had no idea as tothetime digital would take, but I sure like the results & the long term cost
savings. During a recent 10 day shoot during which I shot 1400 images, I
figure I saved, in slide processing costs, the better part of the cost of
the *ist D.
