Bruce Rubenstein wrote: > From what I read in the professional photographers forums (not PJ's), most > film including MF is becoming the providence of fine art and amateur > photographers.
Ouch! The professional forums(!) - I like what is shared here by people who may or may not earn their keep by use of their camera. I see a lot of, "I shot one roll of film last year" type of > comments. I would not make a digital/film decision based upon > what pros are > doing. I can't see anyone basing their thoughts on professional work; if that is not part of their plan to change/enhance film usage. I wouldn't change my 67. Lots of professionals used them last year - nothing has changed for film users, has it? They have different demands and requirements placed on > their images. > Once digital became "good enough" (which it did a couple of years > ago), the > issue of which gives a better image became irrelevant. Aside from > wedding/affair photographers, most photographer's images do not wind up on > film in their final form. They are in printed and images are handled in > digital format for printing. Some end up as slides, but your point is well made. > Most of the comments I read here knocking digital are from folks that seem > to have limited first hand experience with state of the art > digital imaging > devices. Digital will be a force of the future (now, if you have the funds!) but .....not now for me. Malcolm
