> -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Delcour [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > TV, > > just for the record: why do people prefer digital 95% of > the time? Any > striking reason?
They look sharper and they enlarge better. When you enlarge negs, there's a point at which the print starts "falling apart". I always thought the sweet spot for 35mm was 5x7 or 8x10, for 645 it's 8x10 or 11x14, depending on the film. Beyond that, grain becomes intrusive, IMO. You can certainly do it, and I often did (and do), I just think those are the sweet spots. Digital doesn't suffer from this problem. You can go as big as you want, no grain, no pixels. You'll start losing detail at some point, but the space in between the details doesn't fill up with weird colored film grains, it's just space. When I go to appointments now, I have a couple of 16x20's in the car for folks who aren't sure about the quality of digital. They're always reassured - I don't think 35mm can't compete at that size. 645 can, but I can't get the same kind of shots. Since I've started shooting digital, I've had about 30 or 40 meetings with prospective clients, and only one turned me down due to the fact that I used digital (that I know of). The groom was an art conservationist and was worried about archivalness. My signup rate is the same as it was before digital. Digital taught me a lesson about resolution - it's overrated. I'll take sharp and grainless. It's a lesson I only learned because I actually started shooting digital and making prints. Oh, and my lab just got a Durst Theta which they're going to run real b/w paper through. Yippee! Anyone for selenium toned digital prints? tv -- Thomas Van Veen Photography www.thomasvanveen.com 301-758-3085
