In a message dated 11/12/01 3:46:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> "The digital prints are all cheaper than equivalent chemical prints. > although it costs more to gear up for digital printing than it does for > chemical printing, the digital stuff is hugely more convenient and in many > cases has multiple uses, including non-photographic uses." But...but; your statement leans heavily on the ~commercial~ side of digital imaging to make what is an invidious comparison. Even there, the only real advantage digital may have, disappears once medium or small format chemical negatives/slides are scanned into digital files. At that point, pure digital images still take hindmost to the film to digital files which contain literally a world's more information than that of any 1 or 3-pass medium format digital back. At that point, film to digital is lord and master compared to digital-only files. Your statement also does not address the needs of "Joe Six-pack" and his homebound cameras-computers-printers. As it stands, your true multi-Megapixel digital to digital output workstation is beyond the means ~or needs~ of "Joe." It is also patently unfair to change the substance of the argument to fit your proposal. Surely you're not comparing a small format digital workstation at $15,000 to $25,000, to the facilities needed to process medium format digital? **Especially when a single-pass medium format back costs $25,000 and up? Just the lighting for medium format studio digital can cost $75,000 or more. The processes you used to produce your silver print are beyond the capabilities of "Joe's" table-top, small format digital processing. Mafud [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
