Re: Storage of photos whilst travelling?

Mxsmanic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Jeremy Henderson writes:
> 
> > Can you supply some evidence to support it?
> 
> Sure.  See 
> 
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/VelviaScan.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/stairs.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/salute.jpg
> http://www.mxsmanic.com/artists.jpg
> 
> Just a few examples.

Just a few examples of images produced using unstated means - how does
that support your general statement?
 
> > Have you done detailed comparisons of the resolution of real 
> > photos obtained via the two routes?
> 
> Yes.

Then feel free to share your results with us. You can compare your
methods and results with those found on
http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/film.vs.digital.1.html, which
suggest to me that whereas many types of film exceed the resolution of
most digital cameras, here are nevertheless a good many cameras, even
of the sort used by the non-specialist such as myself, that are
capable of higher resolution than that provided by many popular films.
 
> > Wouldn't we all, with teams of specialists to whip the film
> > from our cameras and deliver framed prints at poster size.
> 
> No, we wouldn't.  Many of us care little about image quality.
> 
> > However, on this planet of compromises many people find
> > digital an acceptable solution.
> 
> I don't.  I may someday, if the technology continues to improve.  

That's your decision, appropriate to your needs and circumstances, but
it may not be everybody else's

> As
> long as film gives better results, I'll stay with film--especially since
> it is cheaper as well.

There ya go again - more generalisations. Film =may= give better
results given a certain combination of equipment and conditions. Then
again it may not. For some users film may be cheaper, for others
digital may be cheaper.

J.