Hey? Lets compare paintings. I suggest spray paintings are far better than oil paintings done with a brush. After all those brush strokes are real distracting just like photographic grain.
Why can't it simply be agreed that film makes pretty good images, and digital makes pretty good images. 5 years ago the comparison was rather ludicrous, but that was 5 years ago.
I personally do not prefer the cartoon look of digital, but that is a personal preference and I would prefer tha convience of digital for photography for hire.
2+ years ago I was defending high-end digital on this list and eveyone was telling me I was crazy. Now I find I have to defend film on this list and everyone is telling me I am crazy. Nah, it is you bandwagon riding non-thinking nuts who are crazy <GRIN>. Right now film v. digital is a non-issue. 5 years, who knows? A $1000 6mp is not much competition for a $300 SLR. A 6mp DSLR for $300 is going to hurt film.
Lets see, $100 for an MX, $1 for a roll of film, $4 for processing, $70 for a 6mp film scanner (what I paid in the past few months); or $1500 for a *istD. Not too hard to figure with my finances. However if $1500 was a week or two's pay to me I would not hesitate to go the other way.
For B&W I still feel film rules and will for a long while. After all traditional art is best done with traditional materials.
However if everyone really feels it necessary to jump on that bandwagon, I have a kettle-drum I will trade for an istD.
J. C. O'Connell wrote:
What I would like to see is a (scanned) film vs. digital output of the *istD using a really
good lens at a good fstop and really good
film like tmax 100 or fuji provia 100f.
A good scanner wouldnt hurt either, 4000ppi?
I would like to see an exteme crop blowup of the same detailed subject taken with same lens on a rock solid tripod please....
My hunch is the digital will be far smoother
less noisier/grainy but not as sharp as the film image, overall probably better looking
than 35mm film...
JCO
