In article ,
says...

"jps" wrote in message
...

I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of
information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than
the highest res chip available.

Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would
be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning.

jps


Check out http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/f...digital.1.html

It appears that depending on ISO speed, digital can sometimes be better than
film, even in the 6 megapixel range.

Eisboch

If you're shooting black and white and not tech pan. But if you're
shooting the equivalent of velvia transparencies, you'll need a mighty
expensive camera in place of a sub-$1000 nikon or canon film camera.

I'll bet my $150 nikkormat with a 50mm 1.4 would kick ass on the Canon
5D going for $2700 for the body alone. My $140 Rollei TLR shooting
velvia is still unrivaled, leaving alone the Zeiss glass I can put in
front of the Hassy body.

And, so when a 360 megapixel camera hits the market, Ansel will have
found a near equivalent. Remember, however, that he was constantly
playing with emulsions, chemicals to achieve tighter grain structure and
probably exceeded TMY at 100 by quite a bit.

Digital photography has come a great distance in a short time and I'm
sure we'll all (hopefully) witness the day when it eclipses medium and
large format film but it'll be decades before it's that inexpensive.

And it still won't come close to what I can do with velvia and
ilfochrome in the darkroom. Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of digital
and own a d70s but I still love film and much prefer the art of a
darkroom to what I consider the pseudo-art of computing.

jps