All, I think this is a very interesting question thats posted here and I am looking forward to learn more from your posting. I myself am in a kind of dilemma. I have a brand new F100 which I bought very recently and then I bought D70 few weeks back. I am realizing that I am using D70 99% of the time. I am kind of feeling guilty that I am not using F100 as much. I really like using film but at the same time, I am enjoying taking digital pictures as I can see immediately the result and take another shot if I am not happy especially when I am taking portraits for which I get paid. One comment I would like to make is the quality of image in Digital photography is not completely dependent on the photographer alone, it also depends on the camera (of course the factors such as lens and all is the same in film camera also), where as in film camera its not so much the camera, its possible to get the same quality picture with both low end Nikon camera and an F5. Anyways I am looking forward for somebody to post some advantages with film camera and give some reasons to keep my F100. Thanks, Srinivasa Regeti --- "Emily L. Ferguson" <elf@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > As for printers, I've had only the most cranky > output from my Stylus > CX5200. It seems much more inclined to simply > refuse to print > anything resembling proper color unless I use Epson > Inks. I finally > had to find a discount place to buy them from, after > using all my > usual sources for aftermarket. > > Very tiresome. > > With my 10D I find the color more accurate, whether > I shoot jpeg and > use a custom color balance, or shoot RAW and tweak > the highlights > myself. To put it from the other side, Fuji Velvia > is so extreme > that people have been writing Curve and Levels > profiles to make > digital files adjust to look like Velvia! Even with > Auto White > Balance I'm getting correct skin tones and correct > sky and grass > colors, and sometimes I wish I weren't because > they're not all hyped > up like what I'm accustomed to with Velvia! In > that sense I'd say > the tonal range is broader but has to be pushed to > get the saturated > extremes that are popular in my specialties. > > My 10Ds LCD monitor does not accurately show the > shot's brightness, > still when I look at the histogram it looks like > what I think it > should. > > In fact, that's one of the only two things I think > I'd like changed > about the 10D. The other is the lag before it's > ready to shoot when > you turn it on. > > And for only $4K I could have an accurate LCD screen > and immediate > readyness too..... > > The lag with the 20D is somewhat less than with the > 10D and the LCD > screen is apparently much closer to accurate. > > As for color temperature concerns, on my 10D I can > dial in the temp > in 100K increments from 2800K to 10000K, which would > be great if I > did a lot of studio work. So, no, I don't think > that constitutes a > limitation, just a convenience. > -- > Emily L. Ferguson > mailto:elf@xxxxxxxx > 508-563-6822 > New England landscapes, wooden boats and races, > press photography > http://www.vsu.cape.com/~elf/ > >
