[scottitude]

I understand what Stephen's saying but IMO, unless you have your own darkroom, develop you own pictures, and have absoutely no intention of scanning them for electronic sharing (unless you have a super hi-res scanner with a super hi-price), digital photograhy (or "picture taking") is where it's at and the only way to have absolute control over the final outcome.

Commercial film-processors can ruin photos taken by $5,000 SLRs just as easily (and frequently) as they ruin photos shot with an instamatic.

My digital has 14 different fully customizable settings and with each one I can adjust everthing as if it were SLR. I can change all the parameters like saturation, white balance, shutter speed, film speed, color balance, take pics in b & w, sienna, with primary color filters, and lots more. I could also purchase a variety of aftermarket optical lenses to improve the outcome.

I know the pros who shoot for magazines and such always use non-digital so they have to be the best choice, but they're too cost-prohibitive and time-intensive for my budget and schedule. It's a matter of personal preference and discretionary income, I guess.

Unless I win the lottery, I'll be digital till death! :lol:

~Scott

[chris]

I know the pros who shoot for magazines and such always use non-digital so they have to be the best choice...

I work in te print industry, and at all of the studios I deal with, they shoot with digital cameras. The quality is there.

Magazines and most other printed material is only printed at 133 or 150 linescreen. That means that any resolution above 300dpi is wasted. (Newpapers print at much lower line rulings)

This company ( <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.pimedia.com/">http://www.pimedia.com/</a><!-- m --> ) does all the product shots for the Sears catalogue, among many others. They shoot everything with digital cameras... albeit very high end.

-----

Stephen, Thanks for the info.

[Stephen Dame]

Now that I'm sitting down, I'll clarify the point:

There is quality in digital photo's, but the reason most newsrooms are converting is because of convenience, not quality. If your only concern is time, then why not let the computer do the work for you?

Yes, the quality is there, but it doesn't hold a candle to a properly exposed (Read: Somebody took the time to adjust for the forty different things that can make or break each shot) photograph on film.

I realize that in the end, the process is probably negligble if you're shooting for friends, family, or even a newspaper that's going to end up in the recycling bin tomorrow.

It's just a higher class of image, that's all.