Hi AG,
I think of the 5 reasons you mention, the only one really valid is 3.
I think my E420, costing a few hundred and not $20K, leaves any 35mm
film I have shot in the dust. The latest generation of full-frame
DSLRs do the same to MF film, I suspect. I still shoot MF film from
time to time, but I do not kid myself. I do it for fun and have no
illusions that the image quality is better than digital in any
measurable way.
But all that does not matter. Since neither you nor I photograph for
money, the only thing that matters is what feel like doing.
Cheers,
Nathan
Nathan Wajsman
Alicante, Spain
http://www.frozenlight.eu
http://www.greatpix.eu
http://www.nathanfoto.com
Books: http://www.blurb.com/bookstore/search?search=wajsman&x=0&y=0
PICTURE OF THE WEEK: http://www.fotocycle.dk/paws
Blog: http://www.fotocycle.dk/blog
On Nov 13, 2008, at 5:13 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>
>
> The reason why I choose to shoot film really comes down to several
> things:
>
> 1. A "look" which is natively present, not "photoshopped".
> 2. Fiscal. To go 100% digital and achieve the desired technical
> superiority
> over my competiton requires at least a $20,000 USD investment and
> this is a
> constantly escellating warfare.
> 3. I REALLY enjoy working with film, in spite of the ongoing usage
> tax.
> 4. Different. I like things which are different, yet of excellent
> quality.
> 5. The OM system. Need I say more?
>
> AG
> --
> _________________________________________________________________
> Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
> Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
> Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|