Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings



Derek wrote:

>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.

Absolutely, and I think I've mentioned that before (to a hail of bullets 
from dedicated film-users! ;-)). Also, Digital can give you an "instant 
replay" of what you've been doing, like a Polaroid back only faster.

The problem quickly becomes how much initial cost is involved in "good 
enough for the application"? Presently, it presuposes a fairly rich & steady 
"bread & butter" use for the camera in question (the D1x, in this case), 
which has to be paid off in a matter of 3 years by income (to keep the 
technology current), exclusive of what money the photographer needs to 
continue photographing. Not as expensive as Kodak's earlier $30,000 earlier 
digital system, but not a "walk in the park," either.

As I've previously implied (or will shortly in this thread ;-)), this and
other systems are for serious Pro use (or for those who have more money than 
they're currently needing--like the guy who buys a "Blad" just because he 
can). That's fine, well, and good, but not an excuse to run out and buy one, 
if the children have to starve.  ;-)

Best regards from the Rust Belt--LRA

>
>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
> >
> >

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.