jeremy wrote:
"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 . . .


It is rather in what you are used to, I suppose. There are many
audiophiles who still prefer the old tube-type amps. Bottom line is
that they LIKE the distortion.