"Reasonably priced" is a useless term. That technology will go down in price quickly. I'd like you to show me the difference between any film camera and a 5d II on 4x6" matte paper, where any technique can be used for both systems in order to create the 'best' photograph.

This post was edited by onepagememory on Feb 4 2011 08:28pm

No it's not, if someone can't afford to buy the digital version that costs $40,000 but they can afford the film version that costs $400 plus a bit extra for film and scanning.

Also, who honestly prints to 4x6 where it matters? The only 4x6 prints I've seen have been tests for a layout to save ink and paper or peoples snap shots that they have in their houses. Oh, and the occasional portrait, which I would say film is not so useful for anymore, with an exception or two..

So you're saying that scanning the film to mantain the quality is cost effective? GL with that 50K printer. 1.5k-4k epson printers are still consumer level.

Here's the deal: you don't need a scanner on the 40k digital version, but you do need a 50k scanner on the film.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Besides, unless you're printing 40"x60" you can't even tell the difference.

This post was edited by onepagememory on Feb 4 2011 09:15pm

You don't need to buy a scanner. That's the same as saying you need to buy an expensive printer with digital.

The low-light capabilities of digital passed film LONG ago, and now it's not even close. The up-front cost of digital is higher, but the ability to take as many images as you want for free is invaluable. Film has it's place but it's no competition for digital.

Not really.
With film you HAVE to buy a scanner in order to convert to digital.

This. I can print at Wal Mart. U mad?

This post was edited by onepagememory on Feb 4 2011 11:45pm

o_o

I can scan at Wal Mart. U mad?

at lower quality than I can print. u mad?