Sorry, but I have to object to this a bit. Convenience is a factor
but in my opinion it is an added advantage, not something that
outweighs all other considerations. What has drawn many people to
digital is artistic control. What you have now is much more control
from pushing the shutter button to the final print. It does not
involve passing off the film to someone else for development with a
look baked in by the film manufacturer and the discipline of the
processor. If using negative film it does not involve passing it off
to a printer machine, controlled by an integrated circuit or a
person, who has no idea what the original looks like.
As for print quality I wonder about rose colored glasses. I shot
slides, putting up with restricted dynamic range, because all the
prints I could afford, chemical/optical machine prints most recently
and hand prints in the dawn of time, were dismal at best and usually
awful. Had that been the only choice I would never become a
photographer. I can make an ink jet print that is head and shoulders
above what I could get before and I can make it look the way I want
it. Plus it does not fade away in 5 years hidden away in the dark,
like some of the commercial prints I purchased.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Apr 1, 2007, at 1:06 AM, John Morton wrote:
> I am new to this list but, I am going to go way out on a limb and
> say what I've been thinking for years: the primary factor weighing
> in favor of digital photography is its convenience, and this has
> outweighed all other considerations. This isn't just a general
> consumer preference, but a trend started by busy professionals who
> are seeing their images printed through 85 lpi screens on a daily
> basis anyway - and who very much like not having to develop/dry/
> scan negatives to get a working digital image.
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|