On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 11:02:50 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
wrote:



Note, however, that scanning and darkroom work are increadible sinks of
time. Both Adams and Winogrand (sp?) died with multiple tens of thousands of
images taken that they never got around to printing. My experience with
scanned MF is that I get out to the countryside twice a year, shoot 5 to 10
rolls of 120/220, and spend six months scanning. If you go out with your
dSLR and shoot, say, spring flowers, you can come home evaluate the images
in much more detail (and zero cost) than you could with 1-hour test prints
and go out and reshoot the next day. With MF, you really don't know what
you've got till you've scanned or printed, and your next shot at those
images is a year away.

So digital the first day, 6x7 the next is one way to go.


IMO, Dave overstates the pain of film scanning.

It takes me two or three evenings to scan a roll
of MF on my LS-8000, and that's only if I choose
to scan each frame. Figure 15 minutes per frame,
all told - which includes setup, focus, scan,
and saving/reviewing the file.

Dave's right on with the benefits of digital
capture, it's meaningful and makes me productive
in surprising ways. There's really no excuse for
coming home with bad pix from a decent, working
digicam. (Always bring an extra battery and
memory card...)

So it's like Dave says -- the 10D comes out with
me on the first visit to a new locale. It gives
me lots of mobility and the freedom to snap
away and experiment with views and perspectives.

If the place is good enough to warrant a return
trip, I'll most likely bring the MF or LF kit,
working more slowly, to capture a few of the
angles that worked well the first time.



rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com