To digital or not to digital

"Donna" <donna_lille.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c207e56.0311270332.5c127217@posting.google.com...


Google Troll
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

"Mister K" <misterkash DeleteThis @sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:rcmxb.14556$Eq1.1463372@news20.bellglobal.com...
 > One major change when moving to a digital medium is the ease at which
 > the captured image can be manipulated. In the past with film, the work
 > involved was beyond the average photographer who does not process their
 > own film and prints (in a dark room).

I agree. I love digital cameras and use them for 4 years - I dealt with
scanned films even earlier. However, PhotoShop would never improve a bad
picture. If it's out of focus, poorly framed etc. Digital gear is no excuse
for the lack of photography skills. It's just a medium.

 > Digital has had the same impact on photography as the introduction of
 > 35mm roll film ... it has lowered the ease of usage (and cost), thus
 > introducing photography to a larger percentage of the public.

Yeah, and the standards have dropped. Practically everyone owns a
point-and-shoot or an SLR, however most pictures in the 24 hour labs are not
worth looking at.

 > You probably have noticed that many people with digital camera's would
 > not have ever purchased a 35mm film camera.

Scary, it means that they can't shoot. It's like buying a brand new SUV
without having a drivers license. Roadkill beware! Garbage goes digital.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

  > > One major change when moving to a digital medium is the ease at which
the captured image can be manipulated. In the past with film, the work>
involved was beyond the average photographer who does not process their own
film and prints (in a dark room).>>

I started going digital in '99 with the purchase of a small HP film scanner
and an Epson 1200. By now I've progressed to exclusively digital capture
(Nikon D1x, Nikon 5400) and I've used a Nikon LS2000 for the last three
years to process my chromes archive.

The Epson 2200 has been a revelation in terms of print production. A client
recently rejected use of digital for a set of office prints he wanted based
upon some of my chromes. I had some Ilfochromes made for him at significant
cost, but also gave him backup prints done on the 2200 and Epson Premium
Luster papers. He was astonished at the inkjet prints. The cost difference
is so enormous you have to acknowledge the inevitability of digital
dominance. Even more compelling, the archival qualities of these inkjet
prints kind of put the fork in the chemical processing argument.

Although my early results were horrid, and the learning curve has been steep
the ease of the workflow and immediacy of results are such that I'd never
consider going back to exclusively film & chemical processing. That's not to
say I don;t still get a thrill out of spreading a fresh box of Velvia
chromes out on a light table, but I now ask myself: "Why take this much time
and go to this expense as a PRIMARY means of capture?"


a virtually
Film does have a richness that's currently somewhat elusive, sort of a
fine-curve sort of thing I have difficulty nailing on every image.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

 >Donna" <donna_lille RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
 >news:7c207e56.0311270332.5c127217@posting.google.com...
 >
 >
 >Google Troll
 >

Oh, yeah, I can smell him a mile away.

George<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

donna_lille.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (Donna) wrote in message news:<7c207e56.0311270332.5c127217.DeleteThis@posting.google.com>...
 > Hi
 >
 > I am writing to ask what people think about digital photography taking
 > over.
 > Personally I like digital photography, cheaper, saves time and easily
 > manipulated to give great pictures to show to your relitives.
 >
 > Thankyou Donna

I could not care less. I can't put a digital sensor in my camera.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

 > donna_lille.RemoveThis@hotmail.com (Donna) wrote in message
news:<7c207e56.0311270332.5c127217.RemoveThis@posting.google.com>...
  > > Hi
  > >
  > > I am writing to ask what people think about digital photography taking
  > > over.
  > > Personally I like digital photography, cheaper, saves time and easily
  > > manipulated to give great pictures to show to your relitives.
  > >
  > > Thankyou Donna

There's your answer, Donna.....If you like it, then it's the right thing for
you......<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

For most of the pictures I care about, I shoot on film and scan the
negatives and get silver halide prints from an on-line service. Digital
offers huge flexibility in the intermediate stage. I prefer silver halide
for image capture and prints. I can get a 10 megapixel image from a $250
scanner. To get this quality in a digital camera, I'd have to spend several
thousand. I can change image sensors (film type) for different purposes.
Since the original images are in a human readable form, the images will be
available to my great grand children. I don't have to copy them to new
digital media every few years. I use a digital camera on occasion for things
like eBay postings, but for serious work, I use film.

--
Ron Andrews
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html" target="_blank">http://members.hostedscripts.com/antispam.html</a>
"Donna" <donna_lille.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c207e56.0311270332.5c127217@posting.google.com...
 > Hi
 >
 > I am writing to ask what people think about digital photography taking
 > over.
 > Personally I like digital photography, cheaper, saves time and easily
 > manipulated to give great pictures to show to your relitives.
 >
 > Thankyou Donna<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

Right on, Ron.

Nick

Ron Andrews wrote:

 > For most of the pictures I care about, I shoot on film and scan the
 > negatives and get silver halide prints from an on-line service. Digital
 > offers huge flexibility in the intermediate stage. I prefer silver halide
 > for image capture and prints. I can get a 10 megapixel image from a $250
 > scanner. To get this quality in a digital camera, I'd have to spend several
 > thousand. I can change image sensors (film type) for different purposes.
 > Since the original images are in a human readable form, the images will be
 > available to my great grand children. I don't have to copy them to new
 > digital media every few years. I use a digital camera on occasion for things
 > like eBay postings, but for serious work, I use film.
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

Matt Clara wrote:

 >
 > "Donna" <donna_lille DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
 > news:7c207e56.0311270332.5c127217@posting.google.com...
 >
 >
 > Google Troll

Just plain troll, period. With all the discussion that's already taken
place, there's more material available to this person that this person is
likely to comprehend in any case. We shouldn't need to add more.

I can, however, imagine that this person is genuinely confused, and wants
"her" mind made up for "her". People who want that are another kind of
troll, less evidently insidious perhaps, but indicative of a growing sloth
amongst us. Sloths are trolls too.

Bill Tallman<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital 

Ron Andrews wrote:

 > I use a digital camera on
 > occasion for things like eBay postings, but for serious work, I use film.
 >

Yep same here. I love digital for ebay, shooting simple stuff (like
e-mailing clients pictures or showing friends a silly picture of my
dogs/flower garden etc) but for anything important I still use film.

--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: To digital or not to digital