Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

[derek_c@cix.co.uk (Derek Clarke)]

If the camera is good enough for the application, then they not only get 
the pictures much more quickly, but they save a lot on film and 
processing.

ktrout@hotmail.com (Lynn Allen) wrote:

> OK, but the important question is "What is a D1x?" How expensive, 
> compared to a good SLR?
> 
> Film is a long way from dead (as Kodak has found out, probably to their 
> great relief--or maybe not, considering how much they invested into the 
> technology), but digital is catching up fast. IMHO, there's definitely 
> room enough for both, but the speed of things is mind-boggling.
> 
> Best regards--LRA
> 
> 
> >From: Isaac Crawford <isaac@visi.net>
> >Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
> >Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 13:22:29 -0400
> >
> >Tony Sleep wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 01:15:00 -0700  Karl Schulmeisters
> > > (karlsch@earthlink.net) wrote:
> > >
> > > > Respectfully, many pros are switching to digital.
> > >
> > > For newspaper use it's standard now. But I was recently speaking to 
> > > an >AP
> > > photographer who was grumbling that he has to try and shoot 
> > > everything
> > > twice now - on dig for the wire, and film for the magazine market 
> > > which >AP
> > > are now trying to muscle in on.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Tony Sleep
> > > http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film 
> > > scanner
> > > info & comparisons
> >
> >     Check out
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/0106/01062301d1xtwopagespread.asp for the
> >story of a two page spread in Sports Illustrated shot on a Nikon D1x. 
> If
> >this looks decent (I haven't seen the mag yet), it could be the end for
> >film in weekly magazines...
> >
> >Isaac
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
> 
>