You can not post to an archived thread.
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright Warning! Click for Details ]
In Reply to: Digital -VS- Traditional posted by Van on April 21, 2001 at 08:15:40:
Digital is going to be here if it isn't already for casual snapshots, when you can afford to have your PC or a repository for shots around at the time. I'm still not sure what one would do if one wanted to take a 6 week tour somewhere. I can carry (and afford with no trouble) enough film, but I have no idea how to get enough digital storage for that sort of trip (figure, with editing, 30 shots per day, unedited 2-3 135-36 rolls).For large prints, large presentations, transparencies, I think that old-fashioned film cameras are still the weapon of choice. Presently it's hard to get a digital resolution like a 6x7 cm bit of Velvia or Pan-F+.
Digital cameras have also to evolve, they have for the most part (excepting some the deadly-pricey pro models) a fixed, not-so-great zoom lens (or worse, "digital zoom" :( ) and not the best of features.
I can't imagine why any digital camera couldn't give you a histogram or curve display of a shot, and allow you to tweak it and re-expose the scene accordingly, but only the most $$$$ of the lot come close.
Unlike some of the insultingly negative folks, I think that either one can be handled "organically" to do creative stuff. Film has some limits there that digital doesn't have, but can have effects you'll have huge problems generating digitally. On the other hand, nothing in film beats the ability to colour-adjust digitally, except some of those nice flying-spot printers that let you do it witl film :)
JJ
Follow Ups:
You can not post to an archived thread.
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright Warning! Click for Details ]