On 10-02-28 13:30 , Neil Gould wrote:

I agree with your analogy, Stephanie, but there isn't much difference
between the two media... it's just that the wires are a lot shorter between
the digital sensor and the A/D converter. ;-)

You're re-hashing the dead.


The digital part is storage. No different than a good
film scan.

Alan, there is little similarity between an image on film a film scan. Scan
it, and the image becomes a 2D array, while a piece of film is a 3D pile of
crystals (or other material). Some of us appreciate the subtle differences
between these representations.

I wasn't comparing qualities just the nature of what is an image (film)
and what is storage (a digital scan or camera image). I often prefer
the texture of a film image to a digital image or even a scan of a film
image. However, my workflow is definitely digital - even when I shoot film.

I personally print from scans of MF (and 35mm) and get wonderful results
all the way through. I prefer colour (E-6) to B&W, and there is no way
I am going to go through a colour DR process when I hardly do any B&W DR
processes. Esp. processed like Cibachrome (whatever it's now called).
A friend went through that and suffered batch variance that had him
spending a lot of time and money just to get a first print right. Not
for me. At all.

Sometime, once I develop a better eye for judging tone when shooting, I
may indeed begin printing B&W - but using an Epson 3800 and its black inks.

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.