Re: That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate

In article <EHWah.22943$oP6.21806@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
babelfish <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>For example, my Betterlight scanning back for my 4x5 camera
>can equal the quality I can get with either 4x5 or even 8x10
>film that's been fluid mounted and drum scanned, but the
>conditions need to be just right. In both cases and when
>shooting conditions are at their best the limiting factors
>appear to be with optics and not film vs. digital.

Ok, but that scanning back costs a lot last I looked. And it's
not so good for anything that actually moves while you're shooting.

>Some people still make albumen prints and coat glass plates,    
>but it's not so easy to coat your own slide film and make the   
>chemistry to process it and do all of this well.                

Indeed.