[at-l] Cameras (Kinda Long)

[wdlists at optonline.net (Walter Daniels)]

> The point here, however, is that *if you want the highest 
> image quality for 
> your dollar* film still beats digital.
> 
Until you consider the cost of the film and developing. I have a pro friend
that shoots about half and half but is about to jump for a better digital to
replace his already very good one and retire the film, based solely on cost
of film and developing. The first thing he does with the film is scan it to
digital anyway. His current digital is a 5M Nikon and it prints very well up
to 17in wide. He knows what to look for in digital artifacts but I can't see
them, even at that size. He runs the digital in raw mode with no compression
as he can do better in Photoshop than the camera does in its default
handling in adjusting colors, white balance, etc. On a typical day he may
shoot 10-15 roles of film which is not an inconsiderable expense, especially
given that many of them don't turn out perfect. One saleable picture per
roll is doing well.

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003