I am stating a reality where I live. It is not cost effective to shoot film for the quality sake. All they do is scan it and charge me more than for digital prints. So I am not getting any better quality, I am paying for film, developing and more for the prints. So even if it can be shown that a good optical 35mm print is higher quality than 6mp digi, the process is getting in the way. Certainly all my clients are happy with my digital output up to 20X30.
-- Best regards, Bruce Monday, December 13, 2004, 9:16:23 PM, you wrote: WR> ----- Original Message ----- WR> From: "Bruce Dayton" WR> Subject: Re: Fw: The film is dead >>A reality in my neck of the woods, is that it is not reasonably >> possible to get optical prints. All the labs have gone digital and >> are therefore scanning your film. Even my 67 stuff was not looking >> that impressive. So for a reasonable cost per print and not having >> to >> travel long distances, comparing scanned film (digital) to digital >> is >> more fair than it seems. WR> You are blaming an inability to get good work on the process. WR> William Robb
