Remind me why Im shooting digital

 Was just scanning a few of my old 645 chromes.. ahhh. that stuff sure looks great.  Don't get me wrong, I love digital and love the convenience, but film is not dead yet, mostly because it have been fine tuned for almost 100 years, film deliver some shockingly good high-light control and skin tones compared to digital.

Comments

[Chris]

Hi

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

http://cjeastwd.blogspot.com/2010/03/advantage-digital.html

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.

Bo

[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.

[André]

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.