rage amateur? Maybe.
I spent a week shooting with digital. It wasn't compelling enough to give
up film.
- Original Message -
From: "Derek Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2001 2:15 AM
Subject
> >From
> >> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Canoscan4000.html
> >"The CanoScan FS4000US will be my last 35mm scanner. It's more than
adequate
> >to capture the detail in my images going back to the 1960's. Digital
cameras
> >are improving so fast that I doubt I'll be using 35mm after 2002.
Everything except the "very expensive" part is solved already.
Also cost comparisons between film and digital that imply thousands of 6x4
prints are misleading in the extreme.
With film, a print is necessary simply to see the picture. The digital
picture doesn't need to be printed at all unles
>From
>> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Canoscan4000.html
>"The CanoScan FS4000US will be my last 35mm scanner. It's more than adequate
>to capture the detail in my images going back to the 1960's. Digital cameras
>are improving so fast that I doubt I'll be using 35mm after 2002. Current
>di
Oh oh--
This is a real can of worms, and most opinions are based upon the
specific use people have in mind.
Video has been around now for what, over 20 years? Did it kill film in
the motion picture industry? Certainly not yet... the theaters are
still using light projection systems, and most
"Tomasz Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a question to people writing to this list: do all of you use still
> film only because digital cameras as not good enough yet? Or are here
people
> who see clear benefits of silver halide technology for themselves?
There's still a lot of peo
From
> http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/Canoscan4000.html
"The CanoScan FS4000US will be my last 35mm scanner. It's more than adequate
to capture the detail in my images going back to the 1960's. Digital cameras
are improving so fast that I doubt I'll be using 35mm after 2002. Current
digital
