Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings

[stuart@shaws2000.fsnet.co.uk]

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
>