I hate to get into film-vs.digital debate, and my situation is a bit
unique. However, let me re-iterate that...
At 02:02 PM 4/22/2004, Skip Williams wrote:
>...2. Scanned film is every bit as good as a digital image, it's just that
>you need to spot it in PS to remove the inevitable dust. Colors can be
>corrected equally well in either medium.
Not sure if you have ICE or equivalence for auto dust removal.
>3. Scanning film is a hassle, there's no getting around that. In the end,
>I wish I had something that captured film and digital at the same
>time. But the lack of incremental cost for digital shooting is quite
>liberating. Even after shooting for 30 years, I still get a little
>concerned about taking too much film, as I know it costs me to get it
>processed.
Scanning film is simple if you have bulk film attachment for the Nikon
scanner. Yes, the cost is high, but the option is there.
One major plus point for film - I don't have to worry about archiving the
digital only images. So there are incremental cost to use digital too.
// richard (This email is for mailing lists. To reach me directly, please
use richard@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|