"aglet" <napwalker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:iYadnTVbv8cGb0vanZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Sinner" <sinner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:_jBBj.16098$Er2.5197@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Michael" <adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:2008031115281616807-adunc79617@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On 2008-03-11 15:01:00 -0400, "Sinner" <sinner@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "jime" <jimeiffe@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>> news:nfmdnX-2gJNQTkvanZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>> Has anyone gone from film to digital and back to film? If so why?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What format film? The only real advantages digital holds over film,
is
>>>> its
>>>> relative inexpensiveness, and its convenience. All other things,
>>>> camera and
>>>> lens quality, being equal, fill will always provide the sharper
image.
>>>> I
>>>> don't think sensors will ever achieve the density levels of film
>>>> emulsion.
>>>
>>> Thank you sinner. I agree with you. But we will now have to face 736
>>> posts about "sharpness." Any attempt to explain the information
storage
>>> of film vs "megapixels" will fall on deaf ears.
>>
>>
>> All one need do is look at a couple of Ansel Adams prints and the
>> comparison becomes moot.
>>
>
> Are you kidding me?!! You get much better resolution with digitial!!
> I've got a 12.4 pixel ... I'm sorry, I can't go on ... laughing to hard
> ... You're absolutely correct, of course. Got me to thinking ... if
Ansel
> Adams had used a digital camera and photoshop, I wonder what his legacy
> would be. No doubt he was a great photographer. And a lot of his
darkroom
> activities can be duplicated with Photoshop. But without the richness
> that only film provides, I think he would have been known as an
excellent
> photographer during his day, but perhaps not earned the same place
> historically as he has.
>
I don't know enough about A. A. to add a comment to that part of the
thread,
but I'd like to point two things out.
First of all, "never say never." I have no doubt that digital sensors
will
not only catch up to film in every facet, but will eventually surpass it,
and I'm sure that sensors will even go on to add dementions to image
capturing that film currently cannot approach. However, this assumes that
film will not evolve any further than its current status.
Second, the above notwithstanding, I'd love to go back to digital if I
could
afford it.
My darkroom is waiting patiently for me to win the lottery. Guess I'd
better get out there and buy a ticket...
Hopeful,
Dudley
|
