Chris Brogden replied to my comments on a local commercial photographer and his attachment to film, vs. digital: >> 15 to 20 seconds [download time from camera to computer] is "too >> slow"....
>And how long does it take to develop film? >> He finds digital to be limiting because he's not able to line up a >> series of shots thus captured and compare them side-by-side.... > Sure he can... they'll just be a smaller size to fit them on the screen. > It's like liking up a bunch of negatives to look at.... [Snip] I would > even argue that looking at digital pics on a monitor can be even > easier and more productive in some cases than looking directly at > negatives.... [Snip] Hi Chris, You make good points. So you'd think that for this fellow, switching to digital would be an easy decision. Thus, I'm surprised that this fellow insists that for now -- and probably for five years out -- he believes film is still an advantage for his clients. Hmmm, I'm still puzzled. Maybe I'll see if I can find an e-mail address for this guy and send him a note. Perhaps it's got a lot to do with the types of subjects he shoots. > It sounds like he's comparing digital files (non-prints) to prints > from negatives, and that's an apples/oranges comparisons.... That could be it right there. I can see the advantage of comparing hardcopy images (hardcopy meaning a print or a negative, vs. a "virtual" image). Maybe you would call that a ~preference~ rather than an ~advantage~. This would be indeed be an apples/oranges sort of comparison, as you suggest. Well, one more thing to ponder! Cheers, Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
