William Robb wrote:
I would add to that: In order to get good prints made from film, you have to put more work or $$ into it than most (not all) people are willing vs the quick and satisfying results you can get from digital.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" Subject: RE: Film Still Best for Many Applications? (was Ruminations... )
Today I accidentally put an "old" (April 2004) CD in my computer. That was a
Irfan View slide show, featuring scanned shots made with a MZ-S. They really
looked very good! It made me wonder, that if the film manufacturers had made
it possible for me to get film scanned to high quality files, rather fast
(two - three days) at a reasonable price, film might have been able to
survive quite a bit longer. I - for one - wouldn't have gone to digital just
yet, if I had more obvious/better scanning options, than to buy a 500 USD
(Epson 3200) scanner and use way to much time getting mediocre results.
I think film's demise is (was) made certain, not by any specific technology, but by a combination of factors.
The biggest factor, to me, is the inability to get good traditional prints made by the photo lab industry, making an inferior technology (digital capture and output) look way better than it is.
William Robb
