My two cents on digital vs film

First of all while an engineer can probably more succinctly state
"facts" another fact is that viewing pictures is subjective - period. I
have a CoolScan ED-8000 [Nikon] which is superb. It scans film at 8000
dpi, and if you want, can use the ICE mode to "fix" the scanned images
to eliminate dust, scratches, etc. I have several thousand scanned
images from 35mm and 120 size film. The 35mm dates back to shots taken
in 1959 with my original Nikon "F".

I recently bought a Nikon D70 because it was priced reasonably, had
good reviews, and most importantly, used my older Nikon lenses. I did a
comparison [subjective!!] the other day of shots I made of the same
subject. One was with the D70 using the NEF mode, and the other with an
N70 using the same lens and Kodak ISO 100 negative film. My opinion?
The "grain free" and easily modified image of the D70 is just as good,
maybe slightly better, for up to an 8 X 12 print, when compared to the
ISO 100 Kodak negative film.

I have heard, and seen the results, that cutting the dpi from 300 to
say 200, when you print it will allow an even larger print with no
great degradation of print quality. One mustn't forget that most images
today are seen in lower quality email attachments, and, all to seldom
in the full screen, highest definition mode of a good PC monitor.

I am sure things will only get better in the future. As for me, except
for the rarest instances when I need my 20mm lens to be 20mm - not
30mm, I'll never use film again. I'm certainly not willing, or even
inclined, to buy a new 16 megapixel plus Canon for $8000!!

Finally, digital provides me with almost instant results and, I have
very recently taken to using the Nikon D70 "dual" mode where both a
NEF and lower quality jpeg image are made simultaneously. The jpeg
image is OK for most email purposes and more than OK for deciding if
you want to bother manipulating the NEF image for its full value. Now
let's throw in film cost, processing time, gas money to go to Costco,
the extra cost of a Costco CD so I can decide which images I want to
scan with the ED-8000 and, well, you get the picture.

At some point even reality sets in for a stubborn old cuss like me. I
had been led to believe by experts that digital was a convenient, but
poor cousin, of film at the equivalent ISO. The greatest day in my 45
years of taking pictures with a Nikon was when the Nikon D70 arrived.
Tom Roach

P.S. You can see that I need to change my email address g

The only drawback to dslr's for tech savvy people is the crop factor, and of
course, money and time.

In the end, the ability to pick the ISO by photo instead of by roll makes it an
easy choice.

The only drawback to dslr's for tech savvy people is the crop factor, and of
course, money and time.

In the end, the ability to pick the ISO by photo instead of by roll makes it an
easy choice.

wrote in message
ups.com...
First of all while an engineer can probably more succinctly state
"facts" another fact is that viewing pictures is subjective - period. I
have a CoolScan ED-8000 [Nikon] which is superb. It scans film at 8000
dpi, and if you want, can use the ICE mode to "fix" the scanned images
to eliminate dust, scratches, etc. I have several thousand scanned
images from 35mm and 120 size film. The 35mm dates back to shots taken
in 1959 with my original Nikon "F".

If I'm not mistaken, that should read "4000", not "8000".

wrote in message
ups.com...
First of all while an engineer can probably more succinctly state
"facts" another fact is that viewing pictures is subjective - period. I
have a CoolScan ED-8000 [Nikon] which is superb. It scans film at 8000
dpi, and if you want, can use the ICE mode to "fix" the scanned images
to eliminate dust, scratches, etc. I have several thousand scanned
images from 35mm and 120 size film. The 35mm dates back to shots taken
in 1959 with my original Nikon "F".

If I'm not mistaken, that should read "4000", not "8000".

It all comes down to economics.
If economics were not a factor, it would matter less.

It all comes down to economics.
If economics were not a factor, it would matter less.

It all comes down to economics.
If economics were not a factor, it would matter less.

Mike Henley wrote:

It all comes down to economics.
If economics were not a factor, it would matter less.

While that's true for you, it may well not be a factor for others.
Convenience is one. Certain freedoms are another. Leading edge is still
another.

--
John McWilliams

Mike Henley wrote:

It all comes down to economics.
If economics were not a factor, it would matter less.

While that's true for you, it may well not be a factor for others.
Convenience is one. Certain freedoms are another. Leading edge is still
another.

--
John McWilliams