digital vs film
Out of context: Reply #12
- Started
- Last post
- 65 Responses
- Carty0
film is organic. made from light sensitive silver halide. i've been shooting film for exactly 18 years... i know film. and what i can do under pretty much every situation... i shoot hassleblad with carl zeiss lenses and canon eos 35mm. scanning 8x10 prints from hassy negs and then going to print is sick. you can't compare any digital camera to medium format or large format film 4x5, 8x10.
i used to shoot alot of polaroid to proof my shoots. but now with digital point and shoots being so sick, i now proof my shoots with a canon G2. which has been good enough for print work up to 8x10.
canon has just dropped the rebel digital. a 6.3 megapixel body for $1500. its the cheapest DSLR on the market. i'm buying this body next week and i'm going to begin to incorporate this camera into my regular rotation.
the only real point to incorporating digital into my gear is strictly a money making senario. many clients cannot afford the budgets that a medium format shoot will incurr. it costs roughy $700-$800 for me to buy, shoot, process and contact 50 rolls of 120. then i need to print selects and scan, retouch and get art ready.
so, soon only certain work will be shot with hassleblad, and other work will be shot digital. i have 5 lenses for the canon system so i will be inspired to push some new ideas..
my thoughts? there is room for both... for the everyday snapper, digi is sick... for the photographer, one has to understand both...
this is a pc/mac arguement if i ever saw one.... lmao...