I've learnt a lot; both about digital cameras and also printing and scanning
techniques. I hope to show with my writing below that I have genuinely
listened, and I wasn't closed-minded....
My interim conclusions:
1. If photo labs simply scan in negatives at 2000 dpi (6MP) and then print them
off, then any comparison between a print and a digital image (as I have done)
is meaningless.
2. If photo labs simply scan in negatives at 2000 dpi (6MP) and then print them
off, then they are simply not doing film justice.
3. If you want to get the best out of film, you either need to develop yourself
(probably unrealistic), or use transparency film and project it. In this
situation, you will be able to enlarge beyond that which is reasonably possible
with digital images.
4. You can probably produce a really good printed image off film by buying a
film scanner and a top-notch printer, but this costs £1200 minimum. If you have
a digital camera, you only need the printer, so say £500 instead.
Given the above, it would seem that for all but the most demanding of
enlargements, and thus for general use, digital is far superior to film.
Furthermore, it brings into question the whole future of negative film, but not
(yet) the future of transparency film (a complete reversal from 10 years ago?)
I think that once I have used my existing film up, I will switch mainly to
transparency film in my cameras. I also think it's probably about time I
started looking seriously at getting a digital SLR.
Regards,
Simon Worby
(still open-minded...)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|