Bob Shell wrote:
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
Bob,
Once again, it depends on the subject matter. Any old Digital SLR might
not have the dynamic range of C-41, or produce the 'look' of
old-fashioned B&W film.
And with the advent of film scanners, the darkroom hours can be safely
ignored if you so choose, just scan and then it's just like using
digital output. The advantage for you on the book project is after the
capture stage. Digital post-production is far more time efficient than
darkroom work. Digital capture is somewhat more time efficient, but not
all that significantly for RAW if you've got a good workflow down (I
lose about 1/2 hour a roll by shooting film over digital).
Personally, I shoot film, print digitally, because I can't get the look
I like shooting digitally or printing in a darkroom and I enjoy the
process more. Might be lack of skill (I'm barely competent in the
darkroom), might be just that certain mediums are more suited to
producing certain results.
-Adam
