> -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Rapp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > You prefaced your original comment by saying you had been > lurking. Did > > you miss the 5000 posts pertaining to this subject? > > > I'll go back to my room - Bye
Sorry, don't get annoyed, I'm a bit grumpy tonight. It's just that when people start talking about targets and resolution and how many pixels you need to equal film etc., an alarm starts to go off in my head. I like digital. It works for me. It works for my pro friends. It works for 99% of the people I've ever met who made the switch. It works for my clients. Hell, even JCO is coming around. Will it work for you? I don't know. Anyway, my first flippant comment was an attempt to make the point that I had always thought resolution was what it was all about, and digital taught me it wasn't *that* important. I'm not saying that it doesn't matter, I'm just saying for my uses and preferences any loss of resolution is more than made up for with the lack of grain and high apparent sharpness. As a point of reference, I used to shoot 645 almost exclusively, and printed all my own b/w. tv
