Re: Film vs Digital
- From: "Pumper Hinkle" <ralphcompton@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:31:51 -0700
From the posts, I feel a lot more comfortable about abandoning film.
With my D100, if I know I will want to enlarge a picture, or zoom in on an element of it with Photoshop, I just shoot those at a higher resolution. Works OK for what I do. I never enlarge beyond 8x10 and everyone seems to think my pictures are just fine. Again, I don't use my camera to create art, but rather to illustrate things and/or events.
I have been scanning my old slides with my Epson 4870 scanner using ICE. I don't see an awful lot of difference between the scanned slides and my digital photos. Ditto with scanned negatives.
One thing I do appreciate with digital is that the processing cost is so cheap! I used to take a roll of film and then only use a handful of the shots. Wasteful. I can now review my photos on the computer, Photoshop what I want to tweak, and have the prints done at the local store. As I said, I'm an amateur. Twenty nine cents per 4x6 or 2 bucks for an 8x10 is cheap.
Major complaint about moving up to the D300 is that I can't take my SB80 along. Wish Nikon would make their DSLRs more backwards compatible towards flash.
Thanks again for the input.
Ralph
.
- References:
- Film vs Digital
- From: Pumper Hinkle
- Film vs Digital
- Prev by Date: Re: Film vs Digital
- Next by Date: Re: Film vs Digital
- Previous by thread: Re: Film vs Digital
- Next by thread: Re: Film vs Digital
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading