"jeremy" wrote in message
news:RDh5i.9208$ns.3238@trndny05...

"Trev" trevbowdenHATdsl.pipex.com.invalid wrote in message
...

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
jeremy wrote:
"Allen" wrote in message
...


I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them
looks as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a
very poor substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of
digital is the reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever
remove my film camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in
the future.


I will not be going back to film But My first film scanner was the
Jessop's/Primafilm £100 job and even that did a good job if 8x6 is
acceptable. What did amaze me was the slides from my Helina 35 X where a
lot better then expected and nearly as good as the Minolta SRT shots


The OP does make one important point about appearance: images shot on
digital cameras have a crispness to them that is hard to replicate on
film. The apparent lack of grain, coupled with what I assume is increased
acutance, does lend a distinctive look to digital photos--but I am
uncomfortable with what looks like a "plasticky" sharpness.

It is analogous to watching a movie shot on film versus one shot on tape.
The film has a bit less sharpness, but many of us prefer it to the "live
TV look" of tape. And I don't mind a bit of grain in my photos, because
film prints have always looked that way. Perhaps it's just the contrarian
in me, but I am in no hurry to abandon the look of film. There is a
troubling look of "sameness" to digital prints . . .
Un sharp Mask is very much like high acutance developers in that it
increases the edge contrast just like the developer swelled them