Dave, I feel your pain - I've suffered from several of these problems as
well. Worst was getting an 8x10 of my infamous night shot of Sydney
only to find that, ignoring my instructions, they'd sliced off half the
harbour bridge.
But going totally digital? Not for me. I've gone as digital as I ever
will, in that I've got a film scanner and I do my own enlargements up to
A4. This seems the best way to go to me - retaining all the benefits of
film (like being able to use my lovely OM-1) while having enough control
over the final stages to be sure of getting a good image. The
difference in quality between flatbed scans and film scans can be
startling, and for me this set-up eliminates all the problems you list.
More broadly, will digital ever eliminate film? Impossible to say. I'd
think not, just because with digital you print the shots you want, as
opposed to throwing away the ones you don't want. The cost of
consumables makes this a bit of a pain, I think.
Closing thought - a quote from a British politician around the turn of
the century, who said (and I paraphrase) 'Those who say the motor car
will replace the horse are as misguided as those who said the railways
would'. Make of that what you will!
Roger
DAVDOU9211@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> Fellow Zuiks,
>
> We have debated various areas of the following thread before. However
> some
> recent frustrations of mine have caused me to begin to think about
> moving
> into digital. I am not disparaging the quality of the Olympus image;
> that is
> well documented. But time and the state of the art move on.
> Ok, guys, fire away! Let's discuss this 'cuz I am sure I am not
> alone.
>
> Dave Dougherty
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|