Bacardi

For quite a long time I've been opposed against digital cameras. But I stand corrected.

Of many of my works I had 4x5 inch slides made. Now the guy who made them stopped, and some other ones I contacted asked about three times more than he did, I searched for another solution.

My nephew had bought a digital camera (5megapixel, brand unimportant as I don't make publicity) and I tried it out. I gave remarkably good results, except for distortion (barrell etc). But apart from that, its results were really quite good. In some ways it was no match for my 35mm with slides, in other aspects it was better.

So I got myself a digital camera. As good as no distortion, many options I could only dream of (personal modes, white balance, second curtain delay for flash,...) and a quality that is more than sufficient for even a high quality printing at A4 size (about 8x12 inch)

The only downside is the lack of real wide angle options: 28 is only the beginning of wide angle photography.
I'll be off to France real soon now (leave on Sunday) and I hope to come back with some good pics.

Here's an idea of how it behaves in close-by (not macro): I'm impressed.

The Coach

The quality between digital and analog will always be an endless discussion (I can come up with dozens of articles that prove that film is better, others say digital is), but the majority who have a digital camera will agree that they are great fun to use and that they open lots of possibilities and hopefully you'll find that out very soon.

Have fun Erik! [righton]

Allow me to share some links that you might find useful;

http://forums.photographyreview.com/
http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/index.html
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/
http://www.rogercavanagh.com/