I haven't considered this in a while, but I'm looking at doing some very
large work (to me)... at least 30" - 40" in the largest dimension. I
suspect film will be a better choice for capture medium than a 6 MP camera.
Tom C.
From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: Tom C <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Film is dead...
Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:45:04 -0700
That would just make film very sluggish, rather than dead <grin>.
--
Best regards,
Bruce
Monday, April 25, 2005, 10:37:14 AM, you wrote:
TC> It's not dead. I just bought 32 rolls of 220 and they're alive in my
TC> refrigerator. :)
TC> Tom C.
>>From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>Reply-To: [email protected]
>>To: <[email protected]>
>>Subject: RE: Film is dead...
>>Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:27:08 +0200
>>
>>I don't hope film is dead or dying.
>>I just bought (Joe Wilensky's) MZ-S - I want to shoot slides again! :-)
>>
>>Jens Bladt
>>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt
>>
>>
>>-----Oprindelig meddelelse-----
>>Fra: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sendt: 25. april 2005 19:12
>>Til: [email protected]
>>Emne: Re: Film is dead...
>>
>>
>>We teach several courses at my college based on traditional film
>>photography. They are inevitably overfilled with long wait-lists. The
>>funny part is that the camera of choice is (still) the K-1000. (I have
>>let student borrow lenses and even gave my old Tak 135 2.5 to I student
>>I knew.) I think we are seeing digital becoming the main stream method
>>of choice and film becoming an artistic alternative. Since many
>>amateurs treat photography as an art from, film should continue to do
>>well.
>>
>>
>>Steven Desjardins
>>Department of Chemistry
>>Washington and Lee University
>>Lexington, VA 24450
>>(540) 458-8873
>>FAX: (540) 458-8878
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
