below $1000 film vs digital

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:09:16 GMT, "MikeWhy"
wrote:

"Bob Monaghan" wrote in message
...

some of us agree, some of us disagree, I'm so confused again ;-)

:-) We all learned something from the exchange. Whatever else was said, I
still shoot film when I want absolutely to capture the image to my
satisfaction. This isn't to say that film outperforms digital. On the
contrary. I no longer use my 35mm gear, preferring instead the dSLR. The
images are equal enough in quality, the work involved afterward much, much
less, and the cost inconsequential. It still doesn't compare to MF or LF for
all the reasons that 35mm doesn't compare. This leaves film, and larger
format, as the reasonable choice. Just the same, the dSLR is useful for all
the reasons that made 35mm so popular.

In regards scanning and digital printing, I see them as strongly enabling
technologies. However imperfect the process and equipment, amateurs and
small shops can now do for themselves what they used to farm out to others.
In particular, 8x10 and larger would seem to be the norm now for those
printing at home, and I expect that number has already grown to legion
proportions. Can this be anything but good for MF, when they find that their
5 MP digicam isn't up to the task?



Well said. I couldn't agree more.


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

On Mon, 21 Jun 2004 10:11:33 +0100, Chris Brown wrote:


I'm using a 4870 and 6*6 on a Powermac G4 with 2 gigs of RAM. It copes,
but I like to get the images down to a more managable 36 million pixels
before I even de-spot them. Using the healing-brush on a 100 million pixel
image is painful, 2 gigs of RAM or no.

Which version of Photoshop are you using (or which graphics program, if
not Photoshop)?

"MikeWhy" wrote:

I no longer use my 35mm gear, preferring instead the dSLR. The
images are equal enough in quality, the work involved afterward much, much
less, and the cost inconsequential. It still doesn't compare to MF or LF
for
all the reasons that 35mm doesn't compare. This leaves film, and larger
format, as the reasonable choice. Just the same, the dSLR is useful for
all
the reasons that made 35mm so popular.

Really. We keep forgetting that MF got it's butt kicked by 35mm 50 years
ago. One of the reasons I'm such a gleeful digihead is that digital is doing
to 35mm what 35mm did to MF.

In regards scanning and digital printing, I see them as strongly enabling
technologies. However imperfect the process and equipment, amateurs and
small shops can now do for themselves what they used to farm out to
others.

Really. And despite being "imperfect technologies", they're pretty flipping
amazing. Any twit such as myself can produce images that are worlds better
than anything anyone in the non-photography parts of my life have ever seen.

In particular, 8x10 and larger would seem to be the norm now for those
printing at home, and I expect that number has already grown to legion
proportions. Can this be anything but good for MF, when they find that
their
5 MP digicam isn't up to the task?

Well, I blew ever spare cent I had in 2002 on MF gear, so at least in one
case it was. And for exactly that reason: the 5MP F707 was lacking, and
scanned MF was (and still is) a lot better than what anything affordable and
digital could do.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan