Gregory's Server@Gargron Sorry, but I can't see the point shooting with chemical films, then develop them, then make copies, then digitize the copies/negative.
It is more straight forward shooting with digital machine. All steps reduced in one.
|
5 comments
@Gargron I've been traditional photographer. I used to shoot slides. So I understand the magic of chemical photography for itself, but I don't understand the use of chemical films if the goal is uploading to web. For this purpose digital cameras are the right way, IMHO.  @shevek I don't see uploading to the web as the goal of photography, but as a side effect. I keep all my negatives and I print some of them. @Gargron This is a possible answer I was thinking of. The other is, that perhaps scanning a negative yields better results, nowadays, than right shoot with mid-quality DSLR. @shevek Negatives have insane resolution, that's true. And a used analog camera is much cheaper than a DSLR that shoots comparable resolution. |
@shevek What a depressing view. The process is at least as important as the end result.