> I'm not gonna abandon film totally, but I'm glad I've gone
> digital too :)
I'm in that mode myself. I know that 100% digital is coming for
me, but not without extreme cost.
When comparing digital to film, there is a lot to like about
digital. The workflow convenience is worth a lot right there.
However, it's important to recognize "round peg/square hole"
situations where Film may still have it's day. For
example--time exposures. Another example would be macro with
flash--the OM's OTF flash-control is unmatched by any other
system.
When comparing image to image, digital vs 35mm film is pretty
much a draw. There are times when my E-1 beats 35mm, there are
times when 35mm beats the E-1. With 10MP sensors, there are few
occasions where 35mm beats digital.
But,
Is that the whole story? Sometimes it is. When I'm shooting a
wedding, with the exception of a few shots, digital is the way
to go. When shooting outdoors in some remote location, there
are advantages to film which are not image-quality related.
Does a higher-quality scanner make a difference? ABSOLUTELY!
I'm getting results with my Coolscan V-ED that are extremely
impressive and in some cases have far superceded my previous
results. It's actually a good time to be a 35mm shooter because
not only are the films getting better for scanning, the scanners
are getting better, the software is improving, and most
importantly, we are learning new ways of scanning which yield
even more/better information from the film. Learning to "expose
to the right" with the scanner is a case in point.
Film lives to see another day for me. Not often, but it's nice,
really nice, to have that arrow in the quiver when I need it.
AG
____________________________________________________________________________________
Have a burning question?
Go to www.Answers.yahoo.com and get answers from real people who know.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|