[at-l] Cameras (Kinda Long)

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

At 02:47 PM 8/26/2003 -0400, Walter Daniels wrote:

> > 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.

True, for some pros. I know pros doing stock photography who are still 
using film because that's what much of the publishing market still 
requires. It's changing as the technology gets both better and more 
affordable. Bear in mind that the pro you are referring to shoots way more 
film than the average user so he can recoup the initial cost of digital 
much faster than the average hiker, which is what we are talking about. 
Also if the average hiker shot in RAW mode to get the best quality he/she 
would need substantially more memory than shooting to JPG. I.E. My Olympus 
C-4040Z will take 15 high quality  photos on a 16 MB card in compressed 
mode but only one in uncompressed mode. Also, as you note, your friend "can 
do better in Photoshop than the camera does in its default handling in 
adjusting colors". In other words he's pretty proficient in the use of a 
rather complicated bit of software that costs $699 and few average 
hiker/photographers own or know how to use. 17" prints from a 5MP camera 
are pushing the limits of that file size. I have two prints a friend (the 
one with the Canon 1Ds) sent me which are about 17" that were taken with a 
6MP Canon 10D and one print from his new 11MP Canon 1Ds. I can see the 
difference but perhaps I'm more fussy than most.

Saunterer