On 2013-06-13 06:54, Jan Faul wrote: > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 10:31 PM, karl shah-jenner wrote: >> >> Yes film is inconvenient, it's slow, expensive, messy if you're a klutz .. as is anything worth doing. If I do bother to get back into taking pictures I'll rather only do it with film. > > AFter many millions spent on marketing, digital still lags behind the quality of film. I own a couple of digital cameras, but I primarily shoot. There is not one image on my web page shot with digital. "Marketing" does not, of course, affect the quality of anything! But what do you mean by "quality" here? Digital gives me lower noise and better color accuracy than film at any ISO. And a Gigapixel stitched panorama totally blows the socks off the resolution of any ordinary film photograph (I mean not exotic aerial surveillance camera setups). I can enlarge DSLR images much larger than film images and have them look good (this is me working around claiming they actually have higher resolution, which I'm not certain of; for me film enlargement was always highly limited by the noise, grain). So, by my standards, digital has been clearly higher quality than film since at least 2003. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
