Actually after a nightmare start in digital I would not go back to roll film.OK it takes a lot of getting used to and I guess the drawback is not being able to send it to a lab to sort out the occaisonal naff exposures but I have invested in a new camera ( Nikon D100 ) and apart from my own lax approach to exposures in a studio enviroment the images are starting to look good.Now I guess I have to learn Photoshop etc to get the best of this new technology but if time permits I will.
i like the 'immediacy' (if thats a word) of Digital - being able to see the result without any faffing about. Some camera manufacturers are dropping 35mm in favour of digital only (except for high end SLR) does't this spell the end for film?
__________________
http://www.digitalmood.co.uk
Yorkshire's Premier Digital Imaging Site
It's got to be digital, we have to move with the times. I know some die-hards argue that digital cannot match film for huge enlargements, but to me that is just a call for more development of the digital format to take place.
The only downside I can see is the way some photographers, particularly ones with their own paysites seem to use every shot from a shoot as an update, going for the "300 new pictures a day" angle, then when you look at it, there are 300 shots of just a few poses. In the days of film, a photographer would provide a contact sheet and an editor would pick a set of the best from that. Now it seems quantity is pushed over quality, and you get the whole lot, dodgy expressions included.
One bloke shot Janine may strapped to a bondage wheel, posted a set of 150 pics of her and she didn't change pose once, or remove any clothing or change expression. What's that about, if not just production line churning pics out for the sake of it.
Having said, that quality will always shine through, and the digital format will help
