Depends, many shooting 120 ,conventionally proof their film and then scan only the best negative from each group. But unless the object of your shoot is mural prints you'd be better to shoot with a medium high quality digital camera. What you save on film and proofing will pay for the camera rather quickly. Nikon D100 (or it's cousin the Fuji S2) a Canon 10Ds or even an Oly E10 or E20 will produce a file large enough to produce outstanding 8x10's and very good 11x14's (your mileage may vary). darkroommike ---------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Russell Baker" <rebphoto@pronetisp.net> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@listserver.isc.rit.edu> Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 9:16 PM Subject: Hands of Time.......................... > Hi Gang.................... > > > As I have mentioned before It seems as if > shortly I will be attempting to move into > doing photography digitally. > > [per all my questions about the Olympus E-10] > > I was at first thinking of continuing to use film > and scan it and then print it digitally or have > photo type prints made from the scans. > > And as cost was an issue I was looking into > using a flatbed scanner such as a Epson 2450. > (now the 3200 I believe) > > But there is the thing that baffles me....... > > As I understand it, it takes about > 12 minutes to scan a 6x7 negative. > > On Tuesday I am shooting 13 people > using 120 film (10 exposures). > > One roll per person. > > 130 exposures.............................. > > Where in the world would anyone have > the time to scan all those negatives to make > proofs.............. > > Sure I understand that maybe a few > shots on each roll may not be "keepers", > but still that's a lot of negatives............. > > It sure seems easier and less time consuming > to just go digitally form the start. > > Or am I missing something here? > > > > Russ > R.E. Baker > Photography > rebphoto@pronetisp.net >
