[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>Unless you are ready to spend thousands of dollars for a "professional"
>digital camera, you will not get an image equal to what you can obtain from a
>decent 35mm camera and good film. A couple of technical matters:
>Film has an ASA/ISO rating. I will use ASA for this comparison
>The higher the ASA, the faster (more sensitive) the film.
>The lower the ASA, the higher the resolution (measured in lines/mm) of the
>So it's always a trade-off. In work for publication you want to use the
>slowest film that you can in order to get the best image. I generally use
>ASA 100, but have, back when I was a professional photographer, used films
>with ASA ratings of 25 or even less. Most of those films are no longer made.
I have no idea where the unavailability of ASA 25 film came
from. I use and have use Kodochrome 25 for over thirty years. Also have
used Ektachrome 64 for 20+ years. I have had no problem in getting these
If publication and separations for publications are the
goal, then color slide films offer the best options and opportunities. If
digital web pages and web use are the goal then I suppose digital is a
great way to go.
I personally have a Sony Mavica FD 80 I think, it's a
great toy, loads of fun, but I never think of it as a serious camera for
macro photography. I use 35mm macro lenses as appropriate to the size of
the fish. If I want digital I scan it in using a slide scanner and save it
as a 2400dpi image for archive, many times it appears at 75-300dpi on the
web, so the image is more than acceptable.
Funny I have used a photot set up for fishes and have been
able to make them look natural......
is an example ...... Tony
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe