[rollei_list] Re: FREE Tri-X

So often when we get into these digital discussions, an exaggerated
claim is made, then pointed out, then we hear the back-peddling and
what I call the digital default mode ("It's faster and cheaper"). Not
long ago on this list, we were told by another that there was no
decernable difference between inkjet and traditional prints, which was
another bogus claim.

On this list we try to disseminate accurate information, and no one is
bashing digital or analog image making here. As I said in my post,
there are many good reasons to shoot and/or post-process digitally. At
this time, digitals strong suite is not in the realm of detail under
enlargement, that is the fact and the point I am making. I do take
your point that digital probably has an edge working under low light;
that has been my experience as well, with some limits and caveats...

Eric Goldstein

--

On 4/29/08, Michael Eric Berube <pj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Eric Goldstein wrote:
>
> > How about you give me the money you spent on that D300, and I'll  buy
> > a nice large format outfit, load it up with Tri-X or emulsion of my
> > choice working at ISO 1600, and I'll kick your ass around the room at
> > 16 x 24, 20 x 30 or any other size you'd care to name...
> >
> > No question, there are a lot of great reasons to shoot digital, but
> > detail under enlargement in a dollar for dollar comparison with analog
> > ain't one of them...
> >
> >
>
>  My brides just won't sit still long enough for me to change wet plates
> though!
>  http://goodphotos.com/images/wtd/WTD47.gif
>  :)
>  Don't get me wrong...I LOVE film...in my Rollei or Leica...It worked fine
> for the first 17 years of my career, but these last 6 years shooting only
> digitally have shown me that film is not practical for me to make a living
> with any more. I don't know of any emulsion shot with a wedding-practical
> camera (35 or 120) can compare with a properly exposed full colour image
> from a D300 or D3 in low light at high ISO. Then again even if such a film
> did exist, I'd still have to have it scanned to take it into PhotoShop for
> me to have the control over the image that I want...that alone makes film
> impractical to my bottom line.
>
>  So, (for me) film for fun, digital for food.
>
>  Carpe lumen,
>  Michael Eric Berube
>
>  ---
>  Rollei List
>
>  - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>  - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'subscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
>  - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
>  - Online, searchable archives are available at
>  http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
---
Rollei List

- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe' 
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org

- Online, searchable archives are available at
http://www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list

Other related posts: