----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 8:09 AM
Subject: There are two kinds of
fools
For a "snapper" digital is "better in every way."
Digital still has a hard time with many of
the minute details which make film and hand printing beautiful. I've
shot a d1x and d100 since they came out, along with the Hassleblad H1 system
and leaf backs on Sinars. All of these formats are good for for certain
things. Still, I don't think digital is a replacement for film or hand
printing. Processes which are natural and left, at least some what, to
the possibility of slight error are always going to have appeal. I can not
tell you how many times, I've made a mistake processing or printing with
traditional methods only to think---wow look at that, and then say to myself,
"can I do it again." I seem to find, this occurs much less frequently with
digital work, and when it does---it doesn't have near the same
punch.
There are two kinds of
fools: One says, "This is old therefore it is good." The other one says, "This
is new therefore it is better." - William R. Inge
My humble regards,
Blake Pearson
Birmingham, AL
On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:13 AM, Qkano wrote:
<<
I gave up my LF dream until I'm done with my PhD,
which is only a
couple of weeks away now!!!
I think I'll start with 5x7 and then keep moving
;)
Why bother?
The future is digital.
It's better in every way than film.
The quality achievable with a high end digital SLR
is already as good as LF (so they say) and you don't have to buy any film
...
Q
PS: 37 is the number raw files per GB of storage
medium :o)
--
Whatever you Wanadoo:
