Do BOTH.
Digital for snapshots and average pictures and OM-system
"hi tech" pictures. Like when you want to use an off camera
flash, macro, longer telephoto, odd lighting conditions etc.
Digital, for me is not a substitute, but it's a great addition
to my OM system. Digital replaces lots of the pictures I'd have
taken with my OM, and it avoids all the pitfalls you mention,
including the processing expense and the hassle of digitizing.
The final destination of most of my photos is my computer anyway.
But, like this last weekend when a pair of 2" spiders showed
up in my front yard and set up housekeeping, I didn't think
twice of pulling out my OM-4 and going to work. I can get
some fair shots with digital, but i expect better from my OM.
Allen
----- Original Message -----
From: DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2001 9:48 AM
Subject: [OM] Re: Digital Musings
Fellow Zuiks,
We have debated various areas of the following thread before. However some
recent frustrations of mine have caused me to begin to think about moving
into digital. I am not disparaging the quality of the Olympus image; that is
well documented. But time and the state of the art move on. Here are some
recent difficulties and some financial observations:
1. Beautiful photo of grand daughter compromised by idiot processor
2. Washed out florals due to "old" chemicals at a different processor
3. Ordered cropped 8 x 10 prints from Kodak; got back 8 X 12s with a
mimeographed explanation of the aspect ratio of 35mm film and why I
really wanted 8 x 12s.
4. It costs $12.50 to have a roll of 24 exp Portra ( or any other negative
film) developed and 4 X 6 printed at a local pro lab.
I could go on and on. In my little photography world involving children and
the San Diego scene we do alot of print scanning on a flat bed scanner. To
get better scans I need a slide/negative scanner and they cost $500 or more.
Really good ones cost $2000 or more. In all of the above cases I am using
the newer technology to convert and older technology so that it may be
manipulated by a third newer technology (computer).
I have about a 50 - 50 chance that either my films will be goofed up in
processing or that a third party will decide what I should have rather than
what I ordered. And it is damned expensive to boot.
If I were to acquire a quality digital camera I believe that I could
eliminate the involvement of the photo labs. Then I would have only myself
to blame for image quality.
Ok, guys, fire away! Let's discuss this 'cuz I am sure I am not alone.
Dave Dougherty
|