You'll never know if you don't try. I was in a position similar to yours several years ago. A local Canon pro showed me the capability of RAW, so I decided to have a go at digital. I find I spend less time processing digital than I did scanning film. (Most -- no make that all -- of my clients want digital files, so scanning was an essential part of my digital workflow.) Never looked back. Your results may vary. Paul
> > I'm all mulled out over film v digital. I'm a semi-pro (I guess) as > print sales (web and brick 'n mortar) is not my only sours of income, > but is my only overt effort at income. > I can afford a casual attitude as to "work-flow", (habitually re-shoot, > bracket, re-compose) covet my negs/slides and have no problem with the > processing/scanning/CD ritual or their costs. > Recently sold my MF gear and am at an photo investment crossroads. > I visualize photo trips, wherein my motel relaxing, moose milk drinking > evenings become a sleep-depriving delima of "delete?, save?, re-work?, > re-shoot?...." > Minor point? Maybe. > I do like the cleaner overall look of many digitals, but am I in > love..I'm really not sure. > I realize no one can decide for me, but would appreciate your take. > > Thanks, in advance, for commenting. > > Jack > > > > > > __________________________________________ > Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. > Just $16.99/mo. or less. > dsl.yahoo.com >
