Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Why not digital? (was: Confession time...)

Subject: [OM] Re: Why not digital? (was: Confession time...)
From: GFaulk7376@xxxxxxx
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 19:07:53 EDT
 
In a message dated 7/27/2005 4:03:23 PM Central Standard Time,  
tscales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

Check  out your E6 is 10 years.
>
> It will have deteriorated. But you  will be able to read it.
>
>> I maintain three copies of my  keepers. Two
>> on disk and one on CD/DVD.  If I have to convert  I will.
>
> I have important digital data. Looking after it and  preserving it is a 
> real nuisance. I now can't read my old Nota Bene  files and my WordPerfect 
> 5.1 ones are difficult, too.

TIFF?  I'm pretty confident it will be supported. If not, I'll do a batch  
conversion.





Tom, 90% of the people using digital cameras today will not be able to make  
that conversion, if it is required. Casual observance of digital shooters I 
see  leads me to believe that the point is irrelevant, however. Only committed  
photographers like those on this list seem to back up their work. Of  course, 
people can and do lose their negatives and slides. As far  as justifying a 
digital purchase, it really is a moot point. Once  purchased, most of us can't 
go 
back to film. We've sold our gear to buy new  stuff. It's too late to lament 
our purchase and wish for the old gear.  Convince one's self that the purchase 
makes sense and move one.  I  just purchased a 20D kit for my daughter. (No 
flames please. The college  she will attend next year has a small inventory of 
EOS gear to  use.)  Add to that the new laptop. And printer. The cost is  
outlandish, but it is the price one pays to play in photography's future.  Her 
curriculum is digital SLR based. We shot side by side last week in  Colorado. 
Her 
with the 20D and me with the OM's. Quality difference? Not  that we can see. 
Comparing 13" x 19" prints of the same scene reveals  differences, but it is 
difficult for us to say one print is better than the  other. We used different 
lenses, different exposure values, one print is  from a scanned transperancy 
printed at BWC Lab and the other printed from an  Epson 2400. I guess the 
biggest difference is one print came from a 15 year  old OM4T and 90 macro and 
the 
other print from a very expensive recent  purchase. 
 
Gary Faulkenberry


==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz