you are correct in a way, a lot more people are going to the digital side, I
suspect more will when prices go down, they already have this year by a good 30%..
For my line of work, I have to have some of the best, or a good Hasselblad with a
digital back.. Learning photography is easy, once you understand how it works, and
compensate for light conditions, and arp. with speed. and it's relation ship. And
the same goes for digital.. To answer your question, a lot of web sites, with
great photographs are film that was scanned.. Digital and film will more likely
be in the future side by side.
ands it helps to know that it is not wise to shoot below a 60th of a second with
out a tripod..
stuff like that..
I don't think anybody is going to argue film doesn't produce higher quality
work. BTW if anybody wants to get me one of those Hasselblad for Christmas
that would be okay-) But I'd wager most of the people looking at digital
cameras are looking to produce output for computer use only. That means
email,websites or just personally on the computer. How many websites make use
of the higher quality that a good quality film camera can produce? Rolls
Royce is a better car but if all you do is drive to the corner store it's
IMHO digital cameras aren't really replacing SLRs but are replacing all
more or less throw away cameras every home has or had.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/