On Mar 28, 2006, at 9:27 AM, frank theriault wrote:
However, every time I say how I'm more than satisfied with film, that I like the results it produces, and that I like the process (at least my involvement in the process - or lack of involvement as the case may be), someone jumps in to tell me how much better digital is, and what a luddite I am and how can I say that film is better than digital?
It's meaningless to say one is better than the other without including the all important "for what?".
I'm working on a book project right now that will ultimately have four hundred or more photos. I can't imagine the darkroom hours it would take to do that with film. Well actually I can imagine it, since I did books with lots of photos back in those days, but I measured the time to do a book in years back then. Today publishers want books done in months. Since the maximum repro size of any one photo will be 4 X 6 at 300 dpi, any digital SLR would be far more than adequate. So for this project I don't think there can be any argument at all that digital is better.
Bob
