MikeWhy wrote:

"Stacey" wrote in message
...
And yes I've scanned and reprinted old prints
and ussually they can be made to look better than the original.

And around we go again... I lose track from moment to moment of who is
pro-digital, and who is clinging by bleeding fingernails to fondly held
beliefs.

How about the people who are neither? :-)

Yes, Stacey, this of course is the major strength of digital. The
price of admission, and the cost and pain of archiving, are made more than
worthwhile by the ease of correcting and manipulating an imperfectly
captured image, whether it was partly photochemical or entirely digital.


Which is why I'm still shooting film. I trust it for storing the image and I
have the -option- of digitizing it with no loss of quality, in fact with MF
it's higher quality. If the digital file gets "lost" I still have the
negatives. The only downside is I have to buy film that I can see. I
already own plenty of Medformat stuff so I see no reason to jump ship to
try to save film costs.

--

Stacey