Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

stuart@shaws2000.fsnet.co.uk wrote:


>> 
>> Just wondering, if "glamour" a code word porn these days...
> 
> 
> No :-))
> 

My reason for asking this actually had a purpose, beyond the humorous. 
Getting quality color processing for certain type of images can prove 
problematic in certain parts of the world.  I'd think (why would I know? 
;-)) that this is an area where digital proves quite, shall we say, 
"convenient", as the "instant" films used to be.

> 
>> 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?

If these images will never require reproduction in another form, such as 
printed hard (now I'm speaking glamour!, not as above, so no snickering) 
copy, then the digital will do well.  However, if you might be 
eventually selling images in other formats, or have clients who require 
other formats, unless you are using fairly expensive 'state of the art' 
cameras/backs, you might find you cannot get the quality your clients 
might require or expect.

Art