Austin wrote:
> The right tools for the job. Having a 'resolution' of at
> least 1280x1024 is not untypical for most people who do
> image editing. In fact, I'd bet most on this list have
> 1600 x 1200.
Geeze, Austin. Several people have already responded saying
they are editing files at resolutions as low as 640x480. I've
yet to hear a response from anyone else who uses 1280x1024 let
alone 1600x1200. I'd be very suprised if "most" people
regularly use 1280x1024 let alone anything higher.
> You can buy a decent monitor for around $400 (the one I am
> using now for most of my image editing I paid $375 for.
In the USA maybe. Remember also that a lot of the people on
this list are not in the USA and don't have access to the
cheap prices you do. I live in Australia and I'm reasonably
certain that I couldn't buy a monitor that would workably
do 1600x1200 or even 1280x1024 for everyday editing at a
price of AUD$800. My existing 17" monitor and video card
can do 1280x1024x24bit, but the interface would be unreadable,
or at least cause me far too much eyestrain.
Please don't force out those of us who don't do image editing
for a living, or don't have the money to spend on high end
hardware. There's a lot of folks with film scanners who
aren't professional photographers or graphic artists.
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
