Shooting digital for me is a lot like shooting BW film. I print only the shots I really like and file the rest. One of the things I didn't like about shooting color film was that macihine prints were really the only practical way to proof a roll. Contact sheets were much more expensive. So I would end up with thousands of little prints I didn't really want. Now, I make large carefully crafted prints of my favorite shots and save the rest as RAW files. Digital is also very well suited to selling stock and shooting for magazine pubs -- my two sources of photo income. All my clients want digital files. With film, I had to scan and post process. Now I only have to post process, and I can generate better digital files in less time. Paul
> > > > > From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Date: 2005/03/09 Wed PM 12:41:14 GMT > > To: <[email protected]> > > Subject: RE: *ist DS owners - Yay or Nay > > > > Good question, Mike. > > I find it interesting that people extoll the virtues of digital being > cheaper, > then tell us how many more shots they have done and don't see the paradox. > > Combined with happily evaluating their pictures only in digital media (LCD or > monitor) I am less than convinced that it is the way for me to go. Unless, > of > course, the majority of their shots turn out so bad that it is easily visible > in > the LCD - perish the thought! > > Your own situation seems to me to be one where it would be logical to use > digital. Sending snaps to relatives over the net is another but for that I > see > no requirement for more than a decent P&S. > > Interesting to note that a number of photo companies are advertising on UK > T.V. > along the lines of "For God's sake print something!" Maybe slightly more > subtle > than that but not much. > > mike > > ----------------------------------------- > Email sent from www.ntlworld.com > virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software > visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information > >
