Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/02/11
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]- --- Jim Brick <jim@brick.org> wrote: > When it is all said and done, I believe it will be no better than > the current high end digital imaging. It sure as hell won't replace film. If resolution were the only thing that mattered in photography, then I'd say this is true. However, pure resolution, IMHO, is only a part (and some might say a small part) of overall image quality. And, overall image quality is only a small part of what is important in overall photography. 35mm took over in photojournalism because portability made the compromise in image quality worth it. Digital has started to take over in photojournalism because the workflow and fast turnaround make the compromise in image quality worthwhile. The lesson here is that the question of whether film beats digital or digital beats film is really the wrong question. The question is what tool do *you* want to use to get the images *you* want. When posed this way, there are no absolute answers. Personally, I like to shoot black and white film to get away from computers. B&W prints on fiber paper still have a look that you can't get from digital, and I'm pretty good at it, so I'd be kind of sad if it went away. But for a lot of things, and for sharing pictures, digital is incredibly convenient. What I find interesting is the fact that relatively low resolution digital prints can be made to subjectively look nearly as good, or in some cases better than prints from 35mm film in the same size. Clearly, resolution isn't the only factor here. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html