Well you are talking a couple of different problems, but most are perception. Yes you can get good results from a 6mp, but trouble is how a customer perceives the situation. In the days where cheap point and shoots are 6mp, why am I paying you is place in the mind set. When your customer has an 8 or 10 mp camera, and you want to be paid showing up with a 6 it doesn't look good. It creates the same impression as a pro photographer getting film processed at Walmart. (even if you know the tech there is doing OUTSTANDING work, being seen there in the processing department isn't a good idea) Never mind there is Canon L glass on the front of my 6mp and they have a 27 cent lens.
Frankly MP is to an extent over rated, but not totally. My 10D works fine, but creating a 50mp file for stock portal is not an option. Up sizing has come so far in my mind mp isn't important. Yet its not my opinion that matters. IF the 8000 body can do it, every image should be done that way. Even if its just for a 4x5 print inside they both will have to be down sized to print, by goodness we want that huge file.
Well yes they are and no they aren't. Boy that sounds like a politician doesn't it. Though there is more information in the scan, it is not as clean (at least with my scanner) so noise ninja and processing is required there too. Different yes, but there are some advantages. With scanning you can scan the slide or negative for the size of the print actually needed.
Yea its a pain to rescan, but its also a pain to do a lot of other types of processing. When you factor in the need to transfer digital files down the road to the next storage media, vs having something that you know is usable (even if I have to print it myself) the time overall is probably pretty close to a wash. The best ones would justify a drum scan, and I doubt any digital out there could compete with a top level drum scan of a fine negative.
The biggest advantage of digital is still speed. In a hurry the customer can have a print in minutes. No way I can ever do that with film. Then again being a film guy could become a new niche market. Hard to say.
The other factor is some will say best quality is always better. But at some point one must ask, just how good is good enough. Are you going to use a 4x5 chrome and a drum scan to put a product photo on ebay??? I don't think so. When its personal and fine art, then you might have the point of absolute best quality with absolutely everything you do, but in the commercial world money enters the equation. Probably does anywhere.
What will I decide? Fact is the choice is more likely to evolve than a decision made. Work and budget likely will dictate what I do. I don't think the digital body is in the cards now and the body I have creates limits. That means finding another way and the only other way available is film. Time will tell and really just trying to think it all through.
--- On Tue, 12/9/08, mlent@xxxxxxxxxxx <mlent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> From: mlent@xxxxxxxxxxx <mlent@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Something I wonder if anyone else is considering
> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 9:45 AM
> You know, I have to wonder about something, Mark... Maybe
> you're the guy who can answer this for me. I wonder why
> it is that photographers CAN'T use a digital camera for
> longer than a year or two? Why is it that we feel we have to
> have mind-crushing amounts of maga-pixels when a 6mp camera
> will produce excellent results for most print work? Why is
> it that we have to have THE latest gear? I'm not fussing
> at you, just kind of wondering out loud here. I have a D100
> and a few D200's and I am perfectly content to use them
> and WILL use them for several more years. My clients are
> happy with the images they receive and quite honestly, I
> just don't see a need to upgrade to a D3x when what I
> have does the job and does it very, very well.
>
>
>
> Just remember too that if you DO go back to film that the
> "digital" image you get from your scanner and the
> digital image generated within a camera are two very
> different beasts. Good luck with this and let us know what
> you've decided.
