Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/28
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Austin wrote... Right, but how does that preclude using and then scanning...film? Whether your source is digital camera or scanned film, the printing process is identical. Personally, the ideal workflow is to use film, scan it, and print digitally. I get all the advantages of both, and almost none of the disadvantages. - --- Austin, as you know, that is my present workflow. But it may not be for much longer: Consider the time and work involved in scanning, as compared to simply downloading images from camera to computer; consider how much less work is involved in preparing the images for printing - I know, I know, you never use photo shop etc. etc., but a lot of us spend as much time with photoshop and an image as we would spend working in the darkroom; consider the elimination of film and processing costs; consider the fact that one can be out of town, shoot a job during the day, and make image selections, and do the photoshop work on a laptop in one's hotel room and send jpgs of the images to the client within hours of the shoot. I'm not going to argue with you - of all people - about the detail captured by a Leica, Zeiss - or even Nikon or Canon lens - and film, as compared to digital. (but one does have to consider how the resulting image is going to be used - if it's going to end up in a newspaper, that detail is a total waste. And even if it's going to end up in a high quality photo book, we're still talking about, what, 300 dpi prints?) But when you start to consider time and money, digital has it all over film at this point. B. D. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html