Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings
At 15:25 21/06/01 -0700, you wrote:
>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...
No :-))
>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?
Yes
Stuart
>Art
>
|