>> |
ac
>>38147 Grain? The issue with large prints from digital is resolution, not grain. And that's really not as big an issue as you seem to think--the 16x20 I've got hanging in my hallway interpolated from a 5 megapixel digital picture looks perfectly fine (other than, you know, being a fucking sunset. But I was just starting out, so gimme a break). Yeah, if you want to be able to count the nose hairs on a person 200 feet away, get yourself a medium or large-format camera, but good digital SLR will get you just about equal quality to a 35mm film camera when you take into account the other factors that effect image quality--notably, noise at high ISO is less than film grain at high ISO, and digital shots don't have to deal with dust and scratches on the negatives (dust on a sensor is an issue, but most modern cameras have ways to deal with that).
Additionally, there's the cost issue. Digital costs more--but only up front. There is zero incremental cost. Those rolls of film and developing add up, especially when you're talking medium or large-format, even when you do your own developing. This is especially true with someone who's just starting out learning the ins and outs of photography, like the OP, who will have to take a *lot* of shitty photos before he or she starts to figure out what makes a photo look good, but even a seasoned pro could benefit from being able to take 1000 pictures of something until he's sure that everything's 100% perfect in the shot.
It all boils down to this: The picture you take with a digital camera is always going to be a hell of a lot better than the picture you don't take with a film camera because you were afraid of wasting a frame of film, or didn't want to lug your big-ass medium or large format camera around with you.
|