your need still requires the same RAW & Process/ or careful jpeg shoot process for best results. Both of which are very time consuming. Im not saying scanning film would be easier, but what I was talking about, which was nice, high quality prints, is much easier from a labor standpoint to shoot film and get processed at a lab.
jco -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Doug Franklin Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 12:12 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pixel peepingand lookingfor defects(wasRe:FullframelensesandtheK10D, CA anyone?) J. C. O'Connell wrote: > My original post on the topic was that with > digital photography you cant get as good > a results as you can with film with minimum > effort like you can with film. That's probably true if my eventual target is a printed photo. If my target is a digital presentation, though, direct-to-digital is /way/ less effort for me. -- Thanks, DougF (KG4LMZ) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
