A digital Luddite

[Jeff Fuchs]

Two comments.

Sharon mentioned having CVS put your prints on CD. I've done that once, before I had a digital camera, but it was Wal Mart, not CVS. The results were terrible. Their process is apparently a high-speed deal that makes inferior scans. I don't recommend it.

Second, if you stick with film, why not use slide film? Slides seem to preserve color very well, and detail is not lost in printing. You could use a slide projector and make the image any size you like without paying for mega size prints. Of course, sooner or later someone will accuse you of projecting the image on your canvas.

I worked at a photo lab in college, and I have seen how much detail gets lost in printing. If you lighten the print to pick up dark features, the whites are washed out. Darken, and you lose everything in shadow. Slides lose nothing.

[Sharon Knettell]

The reason I posted this topic was I was surprised by the comments my camera guy said to me. He is the go to guy for all the best pros around, news, wedding, advertising, fashion, (you name it) photographers.

I was feeling digitally disadvantaged. He regaled me with the problems that the full-time photographers were having with the digital process and equipment. And interestingly enough Nikon is reintroducing more FM cameras.

I just thought I would pass the information on as everyone seems to be jumping on the digital bandwagon. Film has worked for me lo these many years and I thought it would help those with limited funds decide to keep theirs. I don't use my camera much except to copy my art or to photograph my model if she leaves for college and I am stuck with an unfinished painting. Printing IS expensive! You need them in a portfolio anyway whether or not you use a digital or a film camera.

I do not use CVS, I use a pro for my scans.

[Jeff Fuchs]

By the way, I'm pretty sure luddite is my birthstone. We have something in common!