[Leica] Epson digital, or what?

[abridge at dcn.org (Adam Bridge)]

I'm going to quibble with John a little bit in a few areas.

First - for amateurs digital is a release from the perceived expense of film,
processing and printing. Released from the boundary of buying film, paying to
have it processed, and then looking through disappointing prints, digital users
can shoot more and learn more.

Our experience has been that most digital photographs are seldom printed. My
wife is the primary digital user in our family. She publishes her work
seamlessly on the net through iPhoto, sharing it with family and friends. If she
makes and image that someone likes (and she's doing it more and more these days)
then she writes it to CD or sends it via e-mail.

She has a decent HP color printer, a paper that works for her, and if she really
cares I do some photoshop manipulation and print it on the 2200 for her.

And when we get back from a shoot she plugs in the camera and downloads to the
computer. Sharing is easy - not as good as projecting slides but we never, ever
do that anyway. We plug into the TV from the computer over a digital link and
show the images that way. It will be nice to be able to send HD images in a few
years. I can't find a way to do it now.

BUT...for someone with an investment in film, in slides, in projecting, then
staying with film makes all the sense in the world.

But I still submit that being able to throw away mistakes "for free" makes
digital incredibly attractive. This from a kid who had to justify every photo I
ever took with parents who critiqued each frame, questioned the value of what I
shot, and suggested I "use less film."

Bah!

Never again.

Adam