From: Baird, Darryl (dbaird@umflint.edu)
Date: 05/13/01-10:21:33 PM Z
Hey, me too.
I'll point out one clear advantage I see for film -- consistent quality that will last and may be more assessible over time. This is not quite the "archival" argument that usually goes against some digital work. Since a lot of my work is montage, I'm concerned about keeping the "original" intact and having it readily at hand, to show others as an example. Sooooo, I have all my digital files run out to color transparency, in 35mm and 4X5 (sometimes). It is a great archive medium and doesn't require so much hardware to support it's life. Yes, I use CD ROM too. I can whip a chrome out of a case or a pocket much faster than I can mount a CD. It's a weird twist, I know.
-Darryl
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bob sez --
I do not want an argument, but I would like someone to at least consider
my position that film many advantages over digital systems. Remember, we
all can't or would want to try to afford digital systems that offer the
best possible quality.
Now, as for digital negatives, I would guess that most here are
satisfied. I can't really argue that we all need extreme quality in all
cases. I will also admit that if someone is satisfied with what they are
getting, perhaps that is enough. For me, however, I will always use film
because of many factors.
B.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST