On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 08:58:38 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I brought up the Ilford price increases here a few weeks back and that > started a bit of a "What's going on with Ilford?" thing because Mark > Roberts had been having problems getting some of the film (iirc). > > I don't think film is dying or dead for that matter - just that less people > are using film than digital imho - I have yet to see a digital B&W image > that can compare to a film B&W image - and yes, I've tried all the > conversion tools out there and I'm aware that there are a ton of things in > Photoshop that you can do and how great the Epson 2200 printer is at B&W > and the Epson 1280 with the specialty inks etc. etc. etc. > > IMHO, and this is only my opinion so to many it means squat, the digital > B&W images just seem "flat" (for the lack of a better word) compared to a > film B&W image - I wish I could put the way I feel about it into text but > that's about as close as I can describe it. > > Again.. this is my opinion only.. ymmv. >
The new (since November) courier company that I work with has quite a few studio pros as clients, so I've struck up a few convos with them if they don't seem too busy when I pop in, and if I'm not in a hurry. They have all gone almost completely digital. One of them that I recently talked to uses a digital back (it's made to fit a Hassy, but I don't know who makes it) on his LF camera. I was talking to one yesterday, and upon seeing several strips of negs on her light table, I remarked, "Gee, does anyone use film any more?" She laughed, and said that she only has two corporate clients that haven't demanded digital. She said that she prefers the "look" of film but the demand for digital plus the effeciency of the "digital workflow" have forced her hand. She actually said that she "envies" us amateurs who can continue to use film; she feels that she simply doesn't have the choice. cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
