Re: [Leica] Leica-what do pros use?

[Eric Welch <ewelch@ponyexpress.net>]

At 10:22 AM 7/1/98 -0700, you wrote:

>that is what the papers and magazines are asking for.  It is much 
>"easier" to port a digital image to a newspaper computer than to 

>day or a week or a month.  I would EXPECT press photogs to want the
>fastest, easiest system possible, thus AF, AE, and digital.

Not at all. You'd be surprised the demands I make on image quality. We have
some of the best reproduction in the mid-west. And we're getting a new
press in the next couple of years. We'll have repro like some slick
magazines soon. Or near as close as a paper can get. And with good quality
images, that's going to be the case here.

And we have to crop pictures rather severely some times. The better the
original, the more quality in the end project.

And scanning and processing (in Photoshop) photos is actually easier with
better quality images to start. Chemical processing is the one thing that
is our enemy. The environmental impact of processing is getting costly, and
one reason driving the move to digital.

It's actually a rather complex set of reason why papers are moving to
digital. The move has been slow because photographers are often dragging
their feet, because they want their negatives to be of high quality. For
many reasons. One of which is books, exhibitions, and other communication
potential. But digital will catch up some day, and the conversion will come
easier. We aren't there yet, but it's getting closer.

On the other hand, as an amateur, I'd never go digital until there is NO
compromise. And that's a long, long time off. Canon now makes a $700
scanner that is as high resolution as the Nikon $1,700 SuperCoolscan 2000.
Probably not as fast, but for an amateur, who cares if it scans in 20
seconds or two minutes? Scanned film will beat digital any day, for any
reason, except speed and economy.
- -- 

Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch

I have my doubts about disbelief.