Frank, glad to read this much more reasonable and modest statement about digital's capabilities, and your own personal abilities and tastes, in contrast to this earlier statement: > In all practical ways digital has exceeded the capability of film for some > time. Certainly if there is an > effect which one wishes to achieve, using a vintage LF lens for example, film > may have to be the > choice but that does not make film better, just an appropriate choice in some > circumstances. Eric Goldstein -- On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:10 AM, Frank Dernie <Frank.Dernie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I quite agree, a matter of personal choice. I get p*ssed off when people say > it meeds 67, or choose any other number, megapixels for digital to match > film which is patently ridiculous. Which film? what other parameter than > resolution? > I get better dynamic range, a smoother look and plenty of resolution from > digital. My prints look more 3 dimensional and real - particularly skin > tones. I still like the look of B&W film for portraits, actually, but not > for anything else. > Some photographers prefer film so for them it is better, obviously. > best regards, > Frank > > On 13 Jan, 2009, at 13:56, austin.franklin@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> But that doesn't mitigate that the other works "better" for others, and no >> amount of discussion is going to change that. Even if it is as simple as >> someone likes to use a particular camera, that's good enough IMO. --- 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 //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list