Ray Carlton on wed 24 dec 97
hi all .... i am currently researching the purchase of an injet printer to
enable the printing of exhibition catalogues promo material etc etc.. if
you are like me the next best thing to a beautifull example of your work is
an excellent photograph of it to show potential customers. I have done my
own image production using adobe photoshop to process my scans and sending
them to outside Bureaus for short run printing... I am now wanting to print
it all myself right here [more control of the creative process, and all
that stuff]....with the current state of injet technology the results look
stunning at least in the promo guff from the manufactures... i would be
very appreciative if any body could let me kow what they are using or would
like to use for this very important part of what we do as artists...I am
looking at 2 main contenders..cannon bjc 7000 and the epson stylus 800...if
you have heard any reports re these two or any other machine that can do
the job well [reports good or ill] it would be a great help.....thank you
in advance and MERRY XMAS TO YOU ALL!!!!
cheers
Please note My NEW!! email address
Ray Carlton
John Lockett on thu 25 dec 97
Hi Ray
We have had superb results from the stylus 800.
We have found that the quality of the paper used has a tremendous
affect on the quality of the print but even on cheap paper
the results are acceptable.
John
In message <3.0.3.32.19971224194238.007a7540@mail.valylink.net.au> you recently
..I am
> looking at 2 main contenders..cannon bjc 7000 and the epson stylus 800...if
> you have heard any reports re these two or any other machine that can do
> the job well [reports good or ill] it would be a great help.....thank you
> in advance and MERRY XMAS TO YOU ALL!!!!
>
> cheers
> Please note My NEW!! email address
>
> Ray Carlton
>
>
>
>
>
--
John Lockett
Here in Birmingham U.K.
Visit Midland Potters Assoc. at http://www.ninedud.u-net.com/mpa
Darrol Shillingburg on thu 25 dec 97
Hi Ray,
I use an Epson 600 for the same purposes as you are looking at. All
business correspondence, promtional material, portfolios. But, I use slides
for galleries, consultants and shows. The 600 is the same guality printer
as the 800 but has some lesser capacities, like it cannot be networked, and
is cheaper.
I've run a couple thousand pages through it, no complaints, no failures.
Darrol in Elephant Butte, NM
DarrolS@Zianet.com
on the web at http://www.zianet.com/DarrolS
----------
> From: Ray Carlton
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> hi all .... i am currently researching the purchase of an injet printer
to
> enable the printing of exhibition catalogues promo material etc etc.. if
> you are like me the next best thing to a beautifull example of your work
is
> an excellent photograph of it to show potential customers. I have done my
> own image production using adobe photoshop to process my scans and
sending
> them to outside Bureaus for short run printing... I am now wanting to
print
> it all myself right here [more control of the creative process, and all
> that stuff]....with the current state of injet technology the results
look
> stunning at least in the promo guff from the manufactures... i would be
> very appreciative if any body could let me kow what they are using or
would
> like to use for this very important part of what we do as artists...I am
> looking at 2 main contenders..cannon bjc 7000 and the epson stylus
800...if
> you have heard any reports re these two or any other machine that can do
> the job well [reports good or ill] it would be a great help.....thank you
> in advance and MERRY XMAS TO YOU ALL!!!!
>
> cheers
> Please note My NEW!! email address
>
> Ray Carlton
>
>
>
>
Russel Fouts on thu 25 dec 97
Ray,
>> i am currently researching the purchase of an injet printer... printing
of exhibition catalogues, promo material etc etc.. <<
I've had an Epson Stylus Color 800 for about a week and think it's great. I
plan to use it for printing very small runs of materials, like you.
Using Photo Quality Glossy Paper, the ICM setting and 1440 dpi mode the
results are amazing BUT get out a magnifying glass and you'll see the
difference. It's probably a lot better than a magazine photo
>> I am looking at 2 main contenders..cannon bjc 7000 and the epson stylus
800 <<
A third one you can add is the HP 722 which I think I would have bought
(mainly because I'm prejudiced towards HP printers) had it been available in
Belgium. The pc magazines (both in Europe and US) rated the Epson and the
HP the highest in quality output in their range. PC Magazine rates HP and
Epson the highest for printer quality and service. I have an HP DeskJet 500
that still works perfectly after 5 years (Enzo's getting it now) and know
original HP LaserJets that are still in daily service as listing printers!
I'd like to know what a "real" photographer thinks of them. I'm not sure if
an inkjet printer can really match a photograph and wonder how close I can
get.
What you get out of the printer depends a A LOT on the quality of the
original photo or slide and the quality of the scan!
I have some related questions;
- What software are people using to work with their photos and is
there a way to improve the resolution of a photo?
- Does anyone have experience with Kodak's Photo CD or Pro Photo CD?
Russel
Russel Fouts
Mes Potes & Mes Pots
Brussels, Belgium
32 2 223 02 75
Http://users.skynet.be/Russel.Fouts
Http://www.japan-net.or.jp/~iwcat
Stephen Mills on fri 26 dec 97
Ray,
My mate Ned Heywood who runs a workshop and gallery in Chepstow, South
Wales (and is a tower of stength in South Wales Potters) uses an Epson
Stylus 600 for all his posters and brochures, and gets astonishing
results from it. However He says he wishes now that he had bought the
800, more robust, but believe me the results from the 600 have to be
seen to be believed. They currently lead the field. I'm saving up for
one.
Steve.
#In message , Ray Carlton writes
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>hi all .... i am currently researching the purchase of an injet printer to
>enable the printing of exhibition catalogues promo material etc etc.. if
>you are like me the next best thing to a beautifull example of your work is
>an excellent photograph of it to show potential customers. I have done my
>own image production using adobe photoshop to process my scans and sending
>them to outside Bureaus for short run printing... I am now wanting to print
>it all myself right here [more control of the creative process, and all
>that stuff]....with the current state of injet technology the results look
>stunning at least in the promo guff from the manufactures... i would be
>very appreciative if any body could let me kow what they are using or would
>like to use for this very important part of what we do as artists...I am
>looking at 2 main contenders..cannon bjc 7000 and the epson stylus 800...if
>you have heard any reports re these two or any other machine that can do
>the job well [reports good or ill] it would be a great help.....thank you
>in advance and MERRY XMAS TO YOU ALL!!!!
>
>cheers
>Please note My NEW!! email address
>
>Ray Carlton
>
>
>
>
>
--
Steve Mills
Bath
UK
home tel: (44) (0)1225 311699 e-mail: stevemills@mudslinger.demon.co.uk
work tel: (44) (0)1225 337046 e-mail: stevemills@bathpotters.demon.co.uk
Wesley C. Rolley on fri 26 dec 97
>What you get out of the printer depends a A LOT on the quality of the
>original photo or slide and the quality of the scan!
This is definitely true, and the quality of the paper is very important.
At the low end of good slide scanning, I have recently started to use a
UMAX PowerLook II for scanning slides (Acutally frames from Gumby and Pokey
Claymation movies) at 1200 dpi and it provides good quality for a
reasonable price ($1,300 with Photoshop bundled.) The trasparancey adapter
provides optical resolution at100 x 600 dpi and it interpolates that up to
3600 x 3600. It also has a slide holder that lets you set up 12 slides as
a batch. The Nikon is better, with much higher optical resolution, but is
also more expensive.
We scan at 1200 DPI and get a huge file (around 6.5 megabytes.) For out
purposed, we then resize it to 4.5 inches wide and save it at 300 DPI. The
file is much smaller. Storage is getting cheaper, but not if you need to
build an archive of high quality material.
The Epson is probably about as good as you are going to get with a laser
printer. If you want near photo-quality reproduction, you need to get a
dye-sublimation printer but that costs more than an electric kiln. (>$5K)
>I have some related questions;
>
> - What software are people using to work with their photos and is
>there a way to improve the resolution of a photo?
I have had the best results using Photoshop and alowing the Photoshop TWAIN
interface drive the scanner through the TWAIN plugin. You generally can
not improve the resolution of the original scan. You get into trouble if
you take a small image and try to enlarge it. The results get very
blotchey. Also make sure that you are scanning in RGB or CMYK modes with
at least 24 bit color.
> - Does anyone have experience with Kodak's Photo CD or Pro Photo CD?
Sorry, No.
Reflections Publishing, Inc.
http://www.refpub.com/
Carl meigs on sat 27 dec 97
At 11:01 AM 12/26/97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray,
>My mate Ned Heywood who runs a workshop and gallery in Chepstow, South
>Wales (and is a tower of stength in South Wales Potters) uses an Epson
>Stylus 600 for all his posters and brochures, and gets astonishing
>results from it. However He says he wishes now that he had bought the
>800, more robust, but believe me the results from the 600 have to be
>seen to be believed. They currently lead the field. I'm saving up for
>one.
>Steve.
>
>#In message , Ray Carlton writes
>>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>>hi all .... i am currently researching the purchase of an injet printer to
>>enable the printing of exhibition catalogues promo material etc etc.. if
>>you are like me the next best thing to a beautifull example of your work is
>>an excellent photograph of it to show potential customers. I have done my
>>own image production using adobe photoshop to process my scans and sending
>>them to outside Bureaus for short run printing... I am now wanting to print
>>it all myself right here [more control of the creative process, and all
>>that stuff]....with the current state of injet technology the results look
>>stunning at least in the promo guff from the manufactures... i would be
>>very appreciative if any body could let me kow what they are using or would
>>like to use for this very important part of what we do as artists...I am
>>looking at 2 main contenders..cannon bjc 7000 and the epson stylus 800...if
>>you have heard any reports re these two or any other machine that can do
>>the job well [reports good or ill] it would be a great help.....thank you
>>in advance and MERRY XMAS TO YOU ALL!!!!
>>
>>cheers
>>Please note My NEW!! email address
>>
>>Ray Carlton
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>--
>Steve Mills
>Bath
>UK
>home tel: (44) (0)1225 311699 e-mail: stevemills@mudslinger.demon.co.uk
>work tel: (44) (0)1225 337046 e-mail: stevemills@bathpotters.demon.co.uk
>
>Ray,
I've been using an Epson 600 now for about a year. No complaints. Really
good work from it. I've used it for photographic quality prints as well as for
making T-shirt prints. If you get your developed films on-line, you can get
good quality prints on your Epson.
Carl Meigs
meigs@neca.com
meigs@neca.com
Ray Carlton on sat 27 dec 97
hi russell .... i use photoshop 4...absolutely excellent no other product
matches the out put....corel paint..paintshop pro mirogafx picture
publisher are no match for photoshop I consider it a must have for this
type of work....and you can improve the look of your print but the
resolution is set when you scan the print ...i usually scan at around 600
dpi and process it down to around 250 dpi ...i have no experience with
kodak photo or pro photo cd's
cheers
At 13:55 25/12/97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
>Ray,
>
>>> i am currently researching the purchase of an injet printer... printing
>of exhibition catalogues, promo material etc etc.. <<
>
>I've had an Epson Stylus Color 800 for about a week and think it's great. I
>plan to use it for printing very small runs of materials, like you.
>
>Using Photo Quality Glossy Paper, the ICM setting and 1440 dpi mode the
>results are amazing BUT get out a magnifying glass and you'll see the
>difference. It's probably a lot better than a magazine photo
>
>>> I am looking at 2 main contenders..cannon bjc 7000 and the epson stylus
>800 <<
>
>A third one you can add is the HP 722 which I think I would have bought
>(mainly because I'm prejudiced towards HP printers) had it been available in
>Belgium. The pc magazines (both in Europe and US) rated the Epson and the
>HP the highest in quality output in their range. PC Magazine rates HP and
>Epson the highest for printer quality and service. I have an HP DeskJet 500
>that still works perfectly after 5 years (Enzo's getting it now) and know
>original HP LaserJets that are still in daily service as listing printers!
>
>I'd like to know what a "real" photographer thinks of them. I'm not sure if
>an inkjet printer can really match a photograph and wonder how close I can
>get.
>
>What you get out of the printer depends a A LOT on the quality of the
>original photo or slide and the quality of the scan!
>
>I have some related questions;
>
> - What software are people using to work with their photos and is
>there a way to improve the resolution of a photo?
> - Does anyone have experience with Kodak's Photo CD or Pro Photo CD?
>
>Russel
>
>Russel Fouts
>Mes Potes & Mes Pots
>Brussels, Belgium
> 32 2 223 02 75
> Http://users.skynet.be/Russel.Fouts
> Http://www.japan-net.or.jp/~iwcat
>
>
Please note My NEW!! email address
Ray Carlton
David Hewitt on mon 29 dec 97
To-date I have used Kodak Photo CD as I do not have a Scanner. This can
be imported directly into MS Publisher if desired and printed at 720
dpi. I use an Epson Stylus color II printer, nothing special but I get
quite good results. As has already been said, it is important to print
on the Special Coated Paper for best results.
What I am interested in knowing is if one gets better or worse results
with a scanned image. If anyone with experience of both Kodak Photo CD
and Scanned images can tell me I would be most interested. Or does it
depend on the Scanner? If so, what minimum specification would you
recommend? I can see that Scanners have some obvious advantages of
flexibility over processed Photo CD's, but are the results as good?
David
--
David Hewitt
David Hewitt Pottery ,
7 Fairfield Road, Caerleon, Newport,
South Wales, NP6 1DQ, UK. Tel:- +44 (0) 1633 420647
URL http://digitalfire.com/education/people/hewitt.htm
D. Kim Lindaberry on mon 29 dec 97
Ray Carlton wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> hi russell .... i use photoshop 4...absolutely excellent no other product
> matches the out put....corel paint..paintshop pro mirogafx picture
> publisher are no match for photoshop I consider it a must have for this
> type of work....
Hello All,
I can't dispute that PhotoShop is a good product, but PLEASE, Corel
Photo Paint is no match? I've used Corel Photo Paint 6 for several years
and got great results. I just got done Beta testing (and now own) the
CorelDraw 8 Suite which includes Photo Paint 8 and it is a wonderful
program. Both programs (versions 6 & 8) are on the same level of quality
output as any PhotoShop software I've used. What it really takes to
produce good photographic results (besides having good input images,
good hardware and good supporting software) is pratice using all of them
in combination. Its especailly important when it comes to using the
photo editing software. The more one uses a program the easier it
becomes to use and the better the results. I personally found the Corel
products more intuitive and easier to use than PhotoShop, but that's
just me. PhotoShop? Corel Photo Paint? They're both good. Just get one
and learn how to use it properly.
cheers
Kim
PS. I know a guy that works in the printing business and his prefered
photo editing software is Paint Shop Pro. I've used it too and
considering its price its a good alternative to the high priced packages
for those on a tight budget.
--
D. Kim Lindaberry
Johnson County Community College
12345 College Blvd.
ATB 115
Overland Park, KS 66210-1299
USA
to visit my web site go to: http://www.johnco.cc.ks.us/~klinda
to send e-mail to me use: mailto:klinda@johnco.cc.ks.us
Ron Wright on tue 30 dec 97
I use an HP scanjet 5 scanner with very good results. The software that
comes with it is very easy to use. For editing pics I use Paint Shop
Pro, very powerful and inexpensive.
David Hewitt wrote:
>
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
> To-date I have used Kodak Photo CD as I do not have a Scanner. This can
> be imported directly into MS Publisher if desired and printed at 720
> dpi. I use an Epson Stylus color II printer, nothing special but I get
> quite good results. As has already been said, it is important to print
> on the Special Coated Paper for best results.
> What I am interested in knowing is if one gets better or worse results
> with a scanned image. If anyone with experience of both Kodak Photo CD
> and Scanned images can tell me I would be most interested. Or does it
> depend on the Scanner? If so, what minimum specification would you
> recommend? I can see that Scanners have some obvious advantages of
> flexibility over processed Photo CD's, but are the results as good?
> David
>
> --
> David Hewitt
> David Hewitt Pottery ,
> 7 Fairfield Road, Caerleon, Newport,
> South Wales, NP6 1DQ, UK. Tel:- +44 (0) 1633 420647
> URL http://digitalfire.com/education/people/hewitt.htm
Ray Carlton on tue 30 dec 97
hi kim..i must vconfess my appraisal of corel photopaint was based on a
fairly short encounter with it...i didn't find it particularly "intuitive"
[what does that term mean?] easy to use....the main rreason i didn't like
it was that when i opened any my photo files the colours where really
biased towards the red end and my monitor is calbrated so that outside
people can use my image files for printing etc.....i guess when i saw the
colour bias it didn't help me like the product too much...really i felt
that if the representation of the colour on the monitor wasn't correct it
was't worth my while having it on my system...that is not to say it
couldn't be set up properly MMM???
we don't see many posts on this subject and it is probably an area related
to our work that could be explored a little......if any one would like to
contribute their ideas or stories re software, printers ,scanners etc it
may be helpfull....i for instance am trying to figure out which colour
injet printer to purchase
cheers
At 11:07 29/12/97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Ray Carlton wrote:
>>
>> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>> hi russell .... i use photoshop 4...absolutely excellent no other product
>> matches the out put....corel paint..paintshop pro mirogafx picture
>> publisher are no match for photoshop I consider it a must have for this
>> type of work....
>
>Hello All,
>
>I can't dispute that PhotoShop is a good product, but PLEASE, Corel
>Photo Paint is no match? I've used Corel Photo Paint 6 for several years
>and got great results. I just got done Beta testing (and now own) the
>CorelDraw 8 Suite which includes Photo Paint 8 and it is a wonderful
>program. Both programs (versions 6 & 8) are on the same level of quality
>output as any PhotoShop software I've used. What it really takes to
>produce good photographic results (besides having good input images,
>good hardware and good supporting software) is pratice using all of them
>in combination. Its especailly important when it comes to using the
>photo editing software. The more one uses a program the easier it
>becomes to use and the better the results. I personally found the Corel
>products more intuitive and easier to use than PhotoShop, but that's
>just me. PhotoShop? Corel Photo Paint? They're both good. Just get one
>and learn how to use it properly.
>
>cheers
>
>Kim
>
>PS. I know a guy that works in the printing business and his prefered
>photo editing software is Paint Shop Pro. I've used it too and
>considering its price its a good alternative to the high priced packages
>for those on a tight budget.
>
>--
>D. Kim Lindaberry
>Johnson County Community College
>12345 College Blvd.
>ATB 115
>Overland Park, KS 66210-1299
>USA
>
>to visit my web site go to: http://www.johnco.cc.ks.us/~klinda
>to send e-mail to me use: mailto:klinda@johnco.cc.ks.us
>
>
Please note My NEW!! email address
Ray Carlton
Ray Carlton on tue 30 dec 97
hi david .... i am using a cheap primax a4 scanner $A400.00 bought it a
year ago and they are much cheaper now ... it is very versatile and you can
set your resolution and scan mode etc prior to scanning..it scans in 32 bit
color i cant remember what the maximum resolution is as i have never used
it....even at 900dpi the file size for a standard photo is ridiculously
large and the machine will go far beyond this..it [the scanner] uses a lot
of memory and is quite slow...the output from my setup has been used to
publish in craft arts pottery in australia etc etc...so it is pretty
good...what is kodak photo cd???
i have no experience of this product...
At 11:01 29/12/97 EST, you wrote:
>----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>To-date I have used Kodak Photo CD as I do not have a Scanner. This can
>be imported directly into MS Publisher if desired and printed at 720
>dpi. I use an Epson Stylus color II printer, nothing special but I get
>quite good results. As has already been said, it is important to print
>on the Special Coated Paper for best results.
>What I am interested in knowing is if one gets better or worse results
>with a scanned image. If anyone with experience of both Kodak Photo CD
>and Scanned images can tell me I would be most interested. Or does it
>depend on the Scanner? If so, what minimum specification would you
>recommend? I can see that Scanners have some obvious advantages of
>flexibility over processed Photo CD's, but are the results as good?
>David
>
>--
>David Hewitt
>David Hewitt Pottery ,
>7 Fairfield Road, Caerleon, Newport,
>South Wales, NP6 1DQ, UK. Tel:- +44 (0) 1633 420647
>URL http://digitalfire.com/education/people/hewitt.htm
>
>
Please note My NEW!! email address
Ray Carlton
David Hewitt on fri 2 jan 98
Hello Ray,
Kodak Photo CD is a process by which any ordinary film, negative or
slide, can be put onto a compact disk that you can then run on your
computer with any suitable software. I have an idea that this is not
available under this name in Australia as I have a friend in Brisbane
who sends me photos attached to his email letters of his pots that he
has had processed in Australia like Kodak Photo CD, but I think it has
another name, and he use PhotoWorks as the software. I have downloaded a
free copy of this in order to view his email attachments.
My original question, though, was to ask if anyone who has used both
scanners and Photo CD's of any kind, if one or other method enables one
to produce better quality prints, whatever printer you may have. I do
not have a digital camera but I think I am correct in saying that, as
yet, they do not produce as good quality results as either scanners or
Photo CD's. Comments would be welcome.
In message , Ray Carlton writes
>.what is kodak photo cd???
>i have no experience of this product...
>
--
David Hewitt
David Hewitt Pottery ,
7 Fairfield Road, Caerleon, Newport,
South Wales, NP6 1DQ, UK. Tel:- +44 (0) 1633 420647
URL http://digitalfire.com/education/people/hewitt.htm
Russel Fouts on sat 3 jan 98
Ray,
>> My original question, though, was to ask if anyone who has used both
scanners and Photo CD's of any kind, if one or other method enables one to
produce better quality prints, whatever printer you may have. I do not have
a digital camera but I think I am correct in saying that, as yet, they do
not produce as good quality results as either scanners or Photo CD's.<<
I should have been a bit clearer. I'm only interested in getting SLIDES
scanned since I only take slides of my pots (and already have an investment
in cameras and equipment to do that). My pots lose a lot of the subtle
colors and tones on paper (too "contrasty"). What I've read
(rec.photo.digital, reviews on www.zdnet.com, www.Kodak.com, this
discussion, etc.) has convinced me that, provided the service agency is
doing their job properly, the images from slides scanned with their
equipment to Photo CD should be better. They have much better equipment than
I could afford.
The "hi-fi system" analogy was a good one but, I'm not going to get great
sound JUST by connecting some fantastic speakers to my little Sony
transistor radio. I need the best quality equipment that I can afford at
each stage; good CD player, good amp, good speakers. At this time, for my
purposes, I should to play my CDs at Kodak to get the best out of them.
I figure that if I get the slides scanned onto photo cd, I've got high
quality "source" material. If I want to print them on my Stylus 800 or put
them on my web page or email them to you or if I want to have them printed
professionally (and benefit from that), I can do that too. I'll always have
good material to start from.
I think that whether you take photographs of your pots and scan them into
the computer or use a digital camera doesn't make any difference. There are
good/great quality scanners and digital cameras, it's basically the same.
But when the jury wants slides, who ya gonna call? Nobody is going to
produce jury quality slides with a digital camera, not for a while at least.
Russel
PS. Thanks for your original question which started an original topic! We've
got the annual chapped hands discussion, the continuing art vs craft
discussion, the annual "I need a cone [fill in the blank] glaze and whether
people should go look it up for themselves" discussion, and the annual bat
discussion (that's where I came in in '96. Always marks an anniversary for
me!). Don't get me wrong, I love this list and there are NO stupid
questions. It's just nice when a really new discussion starts. (anybody got
some Kombacha they can spare?)
Russel Fouts
Mes Potes & Mes Pots
Brussels, Belgium
32 2 223 02 75
Http://users.skynet.be/russel.fouts
Http://www.japan-net.or.jp/~iwcat
Wesley C. Rolley on sun 4 jan 98
My pots lose a lot of the subtle
>colors and tones on paper (too "contrasty"). What I've read
>(rec.photo.digital, reviews on www.zdnet.com, www.Kodak.com, this
>discussion, etc.) has convinced me that, provided the service agency is
>doing their job properly, the images from slides scanned with their
>equipment to Photo CD should be better. They have much better equipment than
>I could afford.
Russel,
My day job is with a WWW site development company and I have done other
multimedia work. I can really agree with your decision to use only slides.
You never can get better than your starting point, and, other things being
equal, slides are the best starting point.
For a group of people who spend so much time with issues of color and glaze
chemistry, we lose site of the idea that the chemistry of film also effects
color. With slides, there is one color conversion, from the light that
comes through the lens to the film. With prints, there are two color
conversions: light to film and film to print. The results will never be as
true as if there were onlyh one conversion. When you add scanning and
printing again, you now have four color conversions for the print and you
will generally only be "reasonably close" in terms of color fidelity.
Be that as it may, the color fidelity of the slide - scan - print process
has proven to me to be better than that I have seen with digital cameras.
If you want to see the variability, just go to a video store that has their
cameras hooked to monitors. Look at the differences in color fidelity when
viewing the same subject. The principles of capturing color information
(through a CCD) are the same in the video camera and the digital still
camera.
If color is important, use slides, at least for the next few years.
wes
Reflections Publishing, Inc.
http://www.refpub.com/
| |
|
