Sure, but - and speaking specifically wrt Frank (and maybe he should speak for himself) - it's a lot of expense and work that may not be possible at this time. Frank's not been scanning (AFAIK), seems to eschew getting too deep into the technical aspects of film photography, and, I suppose, would feel similarly about digital, and at this juncture can't afford a new computer or Photoshop. So, what's he - or anyone in a similar situation - to do if they want to make a few $$ practicing the art and craft of photography?
It's one thing for a shooter of happy-snaps to pick up a small digicam (they can take the cards to any of a gazillion places to get prints), but it seems a lot more complicated to take the plunge into "serious" digital photography starting, essentially, from zero. Shel > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > That's true. It does all depend on what you want from photography. > Shooting film is still a great hobby, and it always will be. But Frank > seemed to be saying that he had hoped to turn photography into a > money-making proposition. For that to happen, he'd have to make > the leap to digital. In terms of learning the technical stuff, the transition > to digital is much easier if you've already been scanning film. In fact, > working converting RAW files in PS is much easier than is producing > good scans. In terms of a computer, I use a fairly high power setup > most of the time, but I can also work with a very slow i-book G3 when > I have to. That's the machine I take on locations. I'm not dialed into > PCs, but I would guess that any 1 gigahertz or faster Pentium 3 would > be powerful enough to get one working productively. On the Mac side, > you could probably get by with a 500 megahertz G4.
