Re: Film may not be dead.....

[Paul Stenquist]

I once argued that an affordable DSLR like the *istD wouldn't provide 
sufficient resolution to be any more than a toy. I never doubted 
high-end digital. A lot of the studio pros in town started shooting 4x5 
digital five years ago. The expensive stuff was always good for the 
high-end market. It took a demonstration by a local pro to convince me 
that 6.1 megapixels was enough to afford me the quality I needed for 
magazines and stock. After that,  I never looked back. However, as a 
hobbyist, I do miss BW darkroom work and intend to shoot some more film 
down the road.
Paul
On Jan 17, 2005, at 1:50 AM, Rob Studdert wrote:

On 17 Jan 2005 at 0:01, Graywolf wrote:
Certainly you and Paul (grin). I remember when we three argued the 
other way
around not too many years back. You and Paul claimed no one in their 
right mind
would spend that much on a digital camera, and I argued that it made 
perfect
sense if you were trying to make a living with your camera.
Hmm, you'd have to post me an archive link as I don't recall holding 
such a
position, I have all my PDML posts since 1997 handy but I don't fancy 
trolling
through them :-)

My recollection is that I had been keen on the prospect of a DSLR (at 
nearly
any sane cost) since well before the MR-52 raised it's pretty but 
fanciful
head.

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