Janet Kaiser on wed 1 sep 99
------------------
IMHO there are two completely different areas to be taken into account, =
which
cannot really (or fairly) be compared:
1) images for reproduction in traditional printing, such as posters, =
postcards,
publications, etc.
2) images for web pages
If photographs are needed for printing, the image on film/slide is =
processed. If
full colour printing is used, that traditionally means three plates
blue/red/yellow (I do not use the fancy new names) will be produced (the
expensive part of the process) and then printed... The paper/card is in =
effect
printed three times.
However, modern technology is different and that usually means either drum =
or
flatbed scanning (just the same as at home) but with top-of-the-range =
hardware.
It then can be digitally reproduced in one go, with anything from a slight =
to a
major loss of quality... It depends on the quality of the hardware. Just =
like
the difference between an ink-jet and a laser printer hooked to a PC.
Unless it is top of the range equipment being used, a digital camera can =
also
only be as good as the hardware i.e. printer. And digital does to all =
intents
and purposes mean =22dots=22, so it is like trying to compare the quality of=
a
newspaper photograph to the original. It just cannot be done=21
However, if the end product is an image on a web page, then a digital camera=
it
the easiest and quickest way to jump from =22snapping=22 a pot to sending =
that image
out into the world... Point, snap, download to PC, upload to web/e-mail to x
number of friends, family and others. What is the time factor? In theory, =
about
10 minutes=21 And that includes retakes because of shine/red-eye/cut off the=
top
of the pot and editing.
The perceived quality can be anything from poor to tremendous... However, =
that
does not depend on the camera, but on the way it was saved. Use the millions=
of
colours available these days and you not only have a brilliant image, but =
you
need megabytes of space, so a small or even tiny image cannot be saved onto =
a
floppy. It is also unnecessary. The human eye does not need all this to tell=
the
brain what it should see. What looks great on screen would look dreadful if
printed as a hard copy.
(AN ASIDE: this also solves the problem of copyright for paintings, etc. on =
the
www. No way will an image be good enough for =22reuse=22 in other than an =
electronic
medium...)
But, what am I trying to say in short? Photographs are the best to pass =
around,
stick in albums, send to print, or just plain sit and admire. But if the =
goal is
to put an image on your PC screen/web site, then digital is by far the =
easiest,
most user-friendly and least tiresome way of doing it, without any loss of
quality. You want to do BOTH? Then yes, it is best to take photographs and =
then
scan them.
ALSO... I agree with other contributors to this thread: once the initial =
out-lay
of the camera is forgotten, digital is FAR cheaper than traditional =
photography.
No film, no processing costs, no hassle getting stuff processed, printed and
collected. And before someone shrieks =22digitals eat batteries=22, let me =
say there
are only 4x 1.5V rechargeable batteries (for my Agfa) and they cost a damn =
sight
less than the mini batteries my Braun and Canon also eat and which are not
rechargeable=21=21 And if the majority of photos are being taken indoors or =
near
(not up a mountain) then there is also the option of using mains electricity=
via
an adapter.
Just my two pence worth=21
Janet Kaiser
The Chapel of Art, Criccieth LL52 0EA, GB-Wales
Home of The International Potters Path =23=23=23 NEED ANOTHER 4,670 TILES =
FOLKS=21 =23=23=23
WEBSITE: http://www.the-coa.org.uk
EMAIL: postbox=40the-coa.org.uk
| |
|
