That's a good point. Some of my biggest brain cramps lately are from trying to decide whether the *ist D, or perhaps whatever is next in the Pentax digicam line-up is for me. As it will require the sale of several of my beloved Pentax film bodies, it's a tough decision. It's made even harder by my owning a C5050 Olympus digicam, it's just enough camera to make me want more. (TTL viewfinder, interchangable lens , etc.) I work with the 5050 and PS regularly for product photos but haven't quite been able to "get serious" about using it for my other stuff, guess film is just comfortable because I am familiar with it. I'm also trying to determine whether digital is all the rage because it's better, or because it's "new" and some people are just trying to justify spending the money. If you will all pardon my dumb questions for a while I'm sure I'll be able to get it sorted out.
Don > -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2004 9:02 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Film Is Dead / A Contrary View > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Don Sanderson" > Subject: RE: Film Is Dead / A Contrary View > > > > This statement somewhat confuses me. > > A few days ago I asked about the high contrast abilities of digital > versus > > film. > > The opinion seemed to be that digital was similar to slide film in > these > > situations. > > This led me to believe that negative film would be superior to > digital when > > in high contrast lighting. > > The statement below seems to be at odds with that idea, what am I > missing? > > You asked about a specific situation, and got a situation specific > answer. Now you are trying to apply that to a generalized view. > > William Robb > >
