I keep hearing digital and film photography being compared. Often by people comparing the raw-shooting, and post-processing method of composed artistic digital photography to the film process of sending film out to be developed and getting prints. This is often used to point out the expense of shooting film.

This is a false comparison. The film parallel to this kind of digital photography involves developing film by hand and printing. This process costs cents per roll.

Dropping film off to be developed is best paralleled to taking family snapshots and uploading on facebook. In this market film is absolutely not competitive. It's also not a creative or hands on process. It's point and shoot. I still use film for this but only because I love film so much.

However, from an artistic standpoint, developing film by hand and making darkroom prints competes very well with digital. It also offers a great deal of creativity and control over the process. It also costs cents a roll to develop black and white, and maybe a dollar a roll at the most to develop color.

Comparing dropping film off at the drug store to creative DSLR photography is apples and oranges.

The difference in price between a high megapixel DSLR and a 35mm SLR camera buys a LOT of film and chemistry.

Bruce said "Choice of camera is a personal matter and others who own Nikon or Canon cameras have their own point of view." Yes, No,

NO for lab tests the values are defined (for sampling of one) Howerver reality is for us, and human eyes, you are right. And YES, All of these cameras are great, and a microscope is needed to really tell the difference. (not really but sounds good to make the point not a heck of lot of difference)

Truly the a77 is one of the greatest in terms of BOTH still and video. Next year, the N/C guys will turn the table and the march goes on.

However for those with Nikon or Canon lenses then the choice is made by economics. And for us with Old and wonderful Minolta Maxxum lenses, the choice is also made again for economics.

I bought a refurb a230 from SONY for $300 with 18-55mm lens, tax and free shipping. It comes with a lens that would cost me $200 if purchased alone. I have a full range of Maxxum lenses so that makes echon sense. The price is about the same as a good point and shoot. What other choice than Sony could I make?

The a230 is a Great (entry and more) camera and I plan to use it as a secondary and eventually get an a77, 55, or 35.

That's not completely true. There are medium format cameras that you can replace the back with film or digital i.e. Phase One digital backs. However, this won't nearly fit your sub $1000 price tag.

I have noticed this on other softwares and contacted the software company. Their response is that since it is a software not recognized by the MS PTB, you get a trojan warning. The company then usually contacts Micorsoft and attempts to get their software recognized. However, free, open-source software may not ever get that attention.

Did you download GS directly from the website?

Hi everyone,
I am new to the forum and as it seems I am now new to photography as well LOL. When I was younger i was very much into film photography and now that I am retired and have the time to revisit the hobby I find that photography has moved into the digital age in a big way. For those of you old enough to remember when 35mm film was packaged in a metal tin well that was about when I was last seriously involved in the hobby.
Now that I have the time I want to become more involved in the post production aspects. I find myself a bit overwhelmed with photoshop.
Are there any good easy to follow tutorials out out there that you all can recommend to learn how to use photoshop?
Thanks in advance for your replies.
Stu