Thanks Rob,
you're probably right ... thanks for a straight answer ... life is going on
at least, as will the visual arts
Peter
>On 23 Jan 2005 at 15:11, Peter Smekal wrote:
>
>> But then again I wonder if the *ist D
>> is that practical when you are travelling (which is when I'm doing most
>>of my
>> photographing).
>
>More practical from my couple of years experience, and probably a lot less
>costly for me given that I always had films processed before subjecting
>them to
>x-rays between flights.
>
>> My LX, ME Super and PZ-1p/Z-1p have been rather trustworthy
>> travel companions. And then I see all the slides, colour and b+w films
>>I've shot
>> during the years in different parts of the world, and start to wonder if it
>> wouldn't be better to go digital by scanning and work on the best of all
>>those
>> pics to begin with.
>
>I'm all for scanning existing material but it's a laborious process and
>doesn't
>always provide the results you may expect even when the best equipment is
>employed. I have found that I can achieve far better consistency and accuracy
>using a work-flow originating with direct digital capture.
>
>> Well, maybe its just sad to put some great gear into
>> retirement (I'm pretty sure once I've managed to get a *ist D I will be
>>toying
>> around with it most of the time). Any advice?
>
>It is sad to retire perfectly good equipment, I'm feeling similarly about
>some
>old audio visual equipment that will eventually be laid waste as digital
>broadcast services become the norm. However I see these services as of
>dubious
>benefit whereas the switch from film to digital image capture for me has been
>quite advantageous. I suspect once you acquire a DSLR with at least the
>capabilities of the *ist D it will surprisingly rapidly become your primary
>photographic tool.
>
>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
