Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

stuart@shaws2000.fsnet.co.uk wrote:

> At 03:49 21/06/01 -0400, you wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> i Roger -thanks for taking the time to reply-you've given me something 
> to think about . basically my reason for buying a digital camera was to 
> use it as well as my other cameras depending on what the intended market 
> was ( yes I know I said I was changing my cameras for a digital :-)) )  
> . Most of my work is or will be for websites so my thinking was that 
> digital would be quicker-no processing or scanning.   At present I use 
> neg film,get it processed then scan using Vuescan and the results are 
> good. I't's just the time it takes.  After what you said maybe I'll just 
> stick to what I've got-trouble is i dont know if there is any way I can 
> get to use a digital  camera-see what the results are like and decide 
> from there -if I was buying a car I could take it for a test drive but 
> maybe I could hire a camera  for a few days .
> regards
> Stuart
> 

Just wondering, if "glamour" a code word porn these days...

I have seen output from digital cameras used for quick model portfolio 
work, and it looks very reasonable.  If you are making work for the web, 
I doubt that whatever defects digital manifests would be very 
meaningful.  At the end of the day, the web is a digital media, and so 
most of the translation removes the majority of "film" qualities anyway. 
(I am speaking here about higher end digital cameras 2-4 megapixel with 
good lens and exposure option).

Heck, not to over due the old saw, but... we're speaking of jpegs at 
72-120 dpi, aren't we?

Art