I do not shoot digital, 100% do to lack of funds. But I do like it for its purposes. I also like film for its purpose. Anyone who shoots lots of unprinted shots like you do, Paul, would be a fool not to use digital. OTOH when I shoot with the Graphic I print about 1 for 2. At that rate even 4x5 film is cheaper than digital.
As for which is better, that is a matter of taste. Simply put people to whom quality is the formost requirement were not shooting 35mm in the first place. They most likely are not shooting digital now either. That is not to say there are not many large format shooters who are now using digital. Although I will make the argument they were not shooting LF for the quality, but to impress the clients with their expensive equipment, and they can do the same with highend digital.
At GFM last year Cotty showed a series of photos asking which was film and which was digital. I for one got all but one of them, and was not sure of that one one way or the other. Film and Digital are not the same. Both have their place. I do prefer a properly optical printed film image over the digital look, but many others do not.
I, as I have said before, do not think one is better than the other from the imaging point of view, but I do hate this film is dead type of stuff because I want to use film for a long time yet. Yes, even if someone was to give me a DSLR I would still use film, the Graphic is too much fun to give up.
graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" -----------------------------------
Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Apr 30, 2005, at 4:47 PM, mike wilson wrote:
Cheaper? Not a chance. Gross capital investment is needed and then there is the possibility of further expenditure. It only adds up if you were using a lot of film previously.
I can't imagine not shooting a lot of film -- or a lot of digital. When I was still shooting film, I averaged at least a roll per day, probably more. On a shoot, I frequently burned 15 rolls. But even at only a roll per day, my first *istD paid for itself in less than six months. Digital isn't just better, it's less expensive as well. But this is a silly discussion. We've been through it all before. Most who don't shoot digital, don't like it. Most who do shoot digital would never go back. It's pointless to go over it again.
-- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
