I don't think it is just a matter of "satisfaction". Film and digital are just two different technologies and it is a matter of how each technology is applied that will determine the final results. i.e. 8"x10" film looks way better than 1.3 MP digital and 14MP digital looks way better than 110 film. Right now Large Format film is the clear winner in the price/performance ratio IMHO for an occasional shooter like myself. I am not against digital but the really good digital is still extremely expensive at the highest quality levels which approach large format film. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Owens [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 1:00 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? Hate to bring up the old film vs digital debate again, but... There are those of here who are perfectly satisfied with digital, and others who are perfectly satisfied with film. It's doubtful that any of us will be swayed from our current positions regardless of chemistry vs. physics or any other pointless arguments one way or another. Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: "Antonio Aparicio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 12:10 PM Subject: Re: Pentax is Dying? > Gringo, > > So film is limited by chemistry and digital sensors are limited by > physics. So what? At the end of the day they are just capture mediums, > and I have yet to see a digital sensor captures something that film > cannot. Plus, as the market currently stands you have to use a hell of > a LOT of film to equal the cost of even an APS sized digital sensor > that is not its equal in terms of image quality. > > As to environmental concerns I doubt digital sensor production and > disposal/recycling is a cost free exercise either. > > A. > > > On 18 Jul 2004, at 17:35, George Sinos wrote: > > > Earlier "El Gringo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> It wont happen. What you guys forget, is that film is limited by > >> chemistry, digital sensors are limited by the technology itself, > >> which is ever advancing. In 5 years the question of putting film > >> in a digital camera will > >> be like putting diesel fuel in the space shuttle, a serious waste of > >> powerful hardware. > >> > >> -el gringo > > > > > > Chemicals are something most companies would rather not mess with. > > An individual photographer may get by with dumping his spent > > chemicals down the drain, but any commercial facility will be > > regulated in some way or another. > > > > Proper disposal of waste water and spent chemicals is an expense > > that most companies would rather eliminate. > > > > I'm not arguing that digital is overall environmentally better or > > worse. It just gets rid of an expensive problem for a lot of > > people. > > > > The chemical problem is just one more side issue that will > > eventually hasten the demise of film. > > > > See you later, gs > > > > >
