Easy JCO, just ask for a second CD when you get your images back from the lab. Digital is in fact easier than film - hence the rapid mass adoption of that medium.
A. On 25/8/04 7:08 pm, "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NOT TRUE, because you are forgetting something very > important, ARCHIVING. > > With film, you get the negatives as well as the prints. > > With digital you now have the extra work of somehow > transferring the files to hard drive, Cd, or DVD > or some other digital media. That is NOT simple > to someone with little computer literacy and even > to someone who knows what they are doing it is extra > work. So film is the simplest and easiest from a user > standpoint. Not only that, when you delve into the "AUO EVERYTH > ING" mode on cameras, film has the advantage because color > print film, the overwhelming choice of the non-technical > photographers, has much more exposure latitude and hence > room for error than digital. Sure you can see a bad digital > shot on the LCD and shoot again to fix it, but it is going > to take knowledge and time to override the automatic settings, > once again, not simpler than film. > > JCO > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gonz [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:56 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: It's over (was Re: Ilford in trouble? and digi snappers) > > > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> >> >> Are you guys serious?, anyone can see, even by your own descriptions >> of the process, that there are less steps and skills required to do >> 35mm film than digital. That is simplicity. Your wrong digital is not >> simpler or AS SIMPLE as 35mm film from a user standpoint. JCO >> >> > > You could treat your digital cam just like a film cam and the process > would be identical. Take pics, drop off cf card, pick up pics. > > rg > >
