« Don't bring the camera bag...! * | Main | Voigtlander 50mm 1.1 - ITS HERE...! »

June 03, 2009


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



well, I feel rather the same (and I scan quite a few negatives) ... but to do as you ask, you (probably) shoot digital because it saves you time in the end. If you're in business then time is money so it saves you money. Probably the client is more concerned with the money than the product and thus you shoot digital.

I've stayed with neg (mainly 120 for 6x12 and 4x5 for ... well 4x5) simply because of the ability to capture in a high scene brightness environment (like your example above).

It is a tennis match however with each having a point or two in its favor. I discussed the same topic on my blog here


should you be interested.


Bo Lorentzen

John, thank you for the feed back, totally agree with you about the Olympus DSLR, I have a E3 (and a E1) for that reason, I follow your suggestion to exactly for commercial work. The post was kind of a rhetorical question as I was so pleased with how my old chromes did come out when scanned.


John Ellis

Try Olympus DSLRs for skin tones and work on your RAW development until you can match film. Dynamic range may not be as good as film but you learn to live within the constraint.


Great Blog, Bo! I share your sentiment about acetate film vs. digital as I too have a love of film that no digital camera is going to be able to diminish despite all of the conveniences.

The comments to this entry are closed.