Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/09/30
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Hi Gib, > 1) If film and digital images are roughly comparable in quality, digital > is much more convenient for me. Since I do most of my own printing, I > would save a good deal of time taking film in for processing, getting > prints or contacts so I can see what's there, and then having the best > negs or slides scanned. From experience, digital isn't that much of a time saver...unless you have someone else do the printing. It is a significant time sink having to print, as it takes about one minute per 4x6 print, and...the time to get the image into PS, and set-up the printer etc. Changing inks, head cleaning...the list goes on. Anyone who believes they are, in the long run, going to save time isn't being realistic. > 2) I would also save significant $$. I now pay for film, processing, and > scanning. None of that would be necessary. Well, it costs about $1 per print from a digital printer...so I'm not seeing the significant money savings. For me to buy the film, develop and get double 4x6 prints from a 36 roll costs me about $17. The same thing from digital would cost me $72... > Do I think the current level of digital imaging is equal or better than > film. It depends on the print size. For 4x6 absolutely. For 11x17...not really. In between, that's a personal preference as to what qualities of each you like/dislike. Regards, Austin - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html