Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/04/29
[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; Hi B.D., I think there are circumstances where digital is better suited. I actually plan on getting a 35mm-esque digital camera sometime in the next few years...simply for happy snaps. That's it though. I still plan on using my "contemplative cameras" (Hasselblad, Rollei, Leica) for, mostly B&W, work that I will want to print perhaps a few "precious" images from. Also, for commercial work, it makes sense too...but for B&W "art" work, not at all. > But when you start to consider time and money, digital has it all > over film > at this point. Yes and no. If you want double prints from all you pictures, where are you going to get them? Print them out one at a time on your inkjet? How about all that time spend downloading them, archiving them, and putzing with them in PS? I agree, some time in the near future, digital will be a lot easier to print (which is the current time sink with respect to digital), but right now...I still believe in some applications (like family happy snaps), film still is much faster. Regards, Austin - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html