Lesley Alexander on mon 18 oct 99
One could display the digital photo on your monitor and take a time
exposure (I tried it at night with all the lights off). It has to be a time
exposure to cover fluctuations in the monitor. Not too bad. Let us know if
you try it too. Lesley in Santa Barbara.
Phyllis Delk on tue 19 oct 99
Did a lot of monitor photographing in the past. Used a 105 mm telephoto, f8 3
sec (i believe exposure), One of the problems in photographing a monitor is
the barreling effect from the tube. By shooting with a telephoto, it usually
is not noticeable. Lots of luck on your photography
Gerald Durbin Ph.D.
Lesley Alexander wrote:
> ----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>
> One could display the digital photo on your monitor and take a time
> exposure (I tried it at night with all the lights off). It has to be a time
> exposure to cover fluctuations in the monitor. Not too bad. Let us know if
> you try it too. Lesley in Santa Barbara.
Kurt Wild on thu 30 nov 00
For people in the upper midwest check out the following site
(Minneapolis/St. Paul). http://www.spectraimages.com/xprice.html
Kurt
email: KURT.L.WILD@uwrf.edu
website: http://wwwpp.uwrf.edu/~kw77
Roger Korn on tue 18 dec 01
Hi Snail,
We shoot slides of 3 megapixel images on a 21" monitor at 1600 x 1200 resolution.
They are not as good as a "real slide", but are accepted by the juries we've
encountered. Now, we use the digital camera (Nikon 995) to get the lighting set-up
right, then shoot the slide with our venerable Canon TX, shooting a bracket of
three shots at -1/2 f-stop, the indicated f-stop, and +1/2 f-stop. This results in
very good slides. Talking to the local pros, they use much the same technique for
portraiture.
All said, I love the digital camera for its instant feedback and ease of use in web
presentations, the main business of my wife, http://www.kayodesign.com. Much of
that work is winery web pages and southwest backpacking travelogues for which the
digital's light weight and huge capacity is ideal. But the stuff for Arizona
Highways is shot with at least 35mm format and preferably 6 x 6 cm format$$$$$$
Hope this helps,
Roger Korn
McKay Creek Ceramics
In OR:
PO Box 436, North Plains, OR 97133
503-647-5464 <-until tomorrow, then:
In AZ:
PO Box 463, Rimrock, AZ 86335
928-567-5699 through mid-Jan '02, or until the %(*&&**^$
rain quits in OR!
Snail Scott wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion about digital
> cameras lately, but I still have a question.
>
> I plan to use my digital camera (after I buy
> one someday) to make images to convert to slides.
> I know this can be pricey, but not as bad as
> shooting a roll after roll of unusable slide
> film (like I did this week).
>
> My question for those of you who've done this:
> how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
> that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
> as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
>
> And, any other thoughts on digital-to-slide?
> Thanks!
>
> -Snail
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Roger Korn on tue 18 dec 01
That's making scans from slides. It's making slides from scans that's tough. The
rough equivalent would require a scan at 10,000 + pixels per inch. I love my
digital camera, but film isn't likely to disappear any time soon. <- Hope I have to
eat those words.
Roger Korn
Lois Ruben Aronow wrote:
> My photographer gives me scans from slides. They are 2700 pixels per
> inch. I have had some made up in the past from the photo store. They
> were 256 pixels per inch. The difference is like night and day (the
> high resolution ones being superior.)
>
> >My question for those of you who've done this:
> >how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
> >that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
> >as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
> >
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Roger Korn on tue 18 dec 01
John,
Your Clay Times articles coincide with us learning to shoot decent slides. Many
thanks from us and a LOT of other folks we turned on to your series.
Roger Korn
John Hesselberth wrote:
> on 12/18/01 1:42 PM, Snail Scott at snail@MINDSPRING.COM wrote:
>
> > My question for those of you who've done this:
> > how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
> > that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
> > as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
>
> Hi Snail,
>
> You'll probably get lots of opinions on this. Mine is very simple. Don't
> do it unless you are prepared to invest several thousand dollars in the
> camera. Somewhere between 10 and 20 megapixels might get you close. But
> maybe not. Believe me film is cheaper for making slides. Digital is fine
> for internet and high quality printing up to, say, 4 x 6 or 5 x 7.
>
> I've had lots of people tell me the articles I wrote for Clay Times are
> helpful to them. Once you test 3 or 4 rolls of film you won't waste any
> more if you follow that guidance religiously. If you are interested they
> are available on my web site or on Clay Times web site(except for the last
> one published September of this year which is only in the magazine so far).
> Web sites: http://www.masteringglazes.com and http://www.frogpondpottery.com
> Email: john@frogpondpottery.com
>
> Regards,
>
> John
>
> "Art is not a handicraft, it is the transmission of feeling the artist has
> experienced." Leo Tolstoy, 1898
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Gail Dapogny on tue 18 dec 01
>>My question for those of you who've done this:
>>how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
>>that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
>>as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
There is a lot of stuff on this in the archives. ("Digital Camerals and
Slides.") I browsed back through them and found, among others, one from
Customs Services which talks about using a slide printer, and getting
excellent slides with 2.5 m.pixels, and even better ones with 3. I suspect
that it has to do with the quality of the printing equipment (as well as,
of course, the photograph itself), rather than the number of megapixels.
---gail
Gail Dapogny
1154 Olden Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-3005
(734) 665-9816
gdapogny@umich.edu
Lajos Kamocsay on tue 18 dec 01
Scott,
Digital images from computers that are projected in movies are usually
rendered 1828 pixels wide (most film recorder chips work with this
resolution; a 16:9 image is 1828x988). That is ~2.something megapixels on a
20-30 ft tall screen. A 3.3 megapixel camera will give you an image size of
2048x1536. This is still nowhere close to the resolution/color
reproduction/dynamics of film, but I think it's good enough...
The cost to get your digital images back to film is where you'll spend a lot
of money. Or you can get a digital projector, which is big bucks again.
But the main reason to shoot slides is because there's no transfer process.
You expose the picture directly onto your final medium, no loss of
quality/information. You'll get your colors and values really close, and the
image is super sharp. My favorite slide film is the Fuji Velvia, really
strong colors, the only problem is that it's kind of slow (ISO 50) so
you'll definately need a tripod... (You can "push" it to ISO 75 which
underexposes the film a bit, gives you even more color, just don't forget to
tell your lab about it.)
Lajos
----- Original Message -----
From: "Snail Scott"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 10:42 AM
Subject: slides from digital
> There's been a lot of discussion about digital
> cameras lately, but I still have a question.
>
> I plan to use my digital camera (after I buy
> one someday) to make images to convert to slides.
> I know this can be pricey, but not as bad as
> shooting a roll after roll of unusable slide
> film (like I did this week).
>
> My question for those of you who've done this:
> how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
> that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
> as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
>
> And, any other thoughts on digital-to-slide?
> Thanks!
>
> -Snail
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Snail Scott on tue 18 dec 01
There's been a lot of discussion about digital
cameras lately, but I still have a question.
I plan to use my digital camera (after I buy
one someday) to make images to convert to slides.
I know this can be pricey, but not as bad as
shooting a roll after roll of unusable slide
film (like I did this week).
My question for those of you who've done this:
how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
And, any other thoughts on digital-to-slide?
Thanks!
-Snail
Lois Ruben Aronow on tue 18 dec 01
My photographer gives me scans from slides. They are 2700 pixels per
inch. I have had some made up in the past from the photo store. They
were 256 pixels per inch. The difference is like night and day (the
high resolution ones being superior.)
>My question for those of you who've done this:
>how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
>that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
>as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
>
John Hesselberth on tue 18 dec 01
on 12/18/01 1:42 PM, Snail Scott at snail@MINDSPRING.COM wrote:
> My question for those of you who've done this:
> how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
> that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
> as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
Hi Snail,
You'll probably get lots of opinions on this. Mine is very simple. Don't
do it unless you are prepared to invest several thousand dollars in the
camera. Somewhere between 10 and 20 megapixels might get you close. But
maybe not. Believe me film is cheaper for making slides. Digital is fine
for internet and high quality printing up to, say, 4 x 6 or 5 x 7.
I've had lots of people tell me the articles I wrote for Clay Times are
helpful to them. Once you test 3 or 4 rolls of film you won't waste any
more if you follow that guidance religiously. If you are interested they
are available on my web site or on Clay Times web site(except for the last
one published September of this year which is only in the magazine so far).
Web sites: http://www.masteringglazes.com and http://www.frogpondpottery.com
Email: john@frogpondpottery.com
Regards,
John
"Art is not a handicraft, it is the transmission of feeling the artist has
experienced." Leo Tolstoy, 1898
Alford wayman on wed 19 dec 01
--- Snail Scott wrote:
> There's been a lot of discussion about digital
> cameras lately, but I still have a question.
>
> I plan to use my digital camera (after I buy
> one someday) to make images to convert to slides.
> I know this can be pricey, but not as bad as
> shooting a roll after roll of unusable slide
> film (like I did this week).
>
> My question for those of you who've done this:
> how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
> that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
> as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
>
> And, any other thoughts on digital-to-slide?
> Thanks!
>
> -Snail
>
>
THEY HAD A GOOD ARTICAL IN CLAY ART awhile back .
Being a clayartist that works for graphic design
company , I would suggest shooting at 300-600
resouloution. You can edit and resize later . For
print I scan at 300 resouloution. Anything higher
would be ok. Becareful when sharpening and the like
because it can mke even a high res pic look bad and
grainy.
______________________________________________________________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change
> your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
> reached at melpots@pclink.com.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Lee Love on wed 19 dec 01
If you are depending on these slides for something important (like
getting into the MFA program you want), I wouldn't mess around. Go to a
professional photographer for your slides, preferably, someone who is an expert
at shooting work like yours.
I had Peter Lee shoot my work. He photographs the work of many
potters in Minnesota and Wisconsin. He is very good at it. For around
$100.00, he would shoot 12 different pieces or sets. No bracketing (he knows
what he is doing) so I would get 3 sets of each of the 12 shots (out of a roll
of 36.) He is so good at it, and charges by the hour, that the cost is
fairly low. His excellent work helped me win several grants, including the
Jerome Travel/Study grant that helped me come to Japan.
--
Lee Love
Mashiko JAPAN Ikiru@kami.com
Interested in Folkcraft? Signup:
Subscribe: mingei-subscribe@egroups.com
Or: http://www.egroups.com/group/mingei
Help ET phone Earth: http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/
Orchard Valley Ceramic Arts Guild on wed 19 dec 01
I've had commercial slides made on a film recorder at 4000 lines per inch.
Given the surface area of a slide, I think that works out to 20 Megapixels
(or pretty darn close). They looked very good. But that kind of resolution
is *expensive* territory.
I think you're better off with film for now, until the technology gets better
and cheaper.
-Bob
>There's been a lot of discussion about digital
>cameras lately, but I still have a question.
>
>I plan to use my digital camera (after I buy
>one someday) to make images to convert to slides.
>I know this can be pricey, but not as bad as
>shooting a roll after roll of unusable slide
>film (like I did this week).
>
>My question for those of you who've done this:
>how many megapixels are necessary to get an image
>that's detailed enough to look OK when projected
>as a slide? (It seems that 3 is not enough.)
>
>And, any other thoughts on digital-to-slide?
>Thanks!
>
> -Snail
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Bob Nicholson
Webmaster, Orchard Valley Ceramic Arts Guild
http://www.ovcag.org/
Snail Scott on wed 19 dec 01
At 10:14 PM 12/19/01 +0900, Lee wrote:
> If you are depending on these slides for something important (like
>getting into the MFA program you want), I wouldn't mess around. Go to a
>professional photographer for your slides, preferably, someone who is an
expert
>at shooting work like yours.
It's a rare photographer, even among professionals, who
can look at a 3-D piece, and see it as the 2-D piece it
will become when photographed, while still showing it as
a dimensional object. I've worked with a few photographers
in this league, and they can see the work with a fresh
and knowledgeable eye that makes for wonderful pictures
that show the work in ways even the artist never saw.
It's frustrating to know that many times more people
will see pictures of my work than will ever see the work
itself, and will know the work only as a two-dimensional
image. A good photographer has the skill to recreate
the object as a two-dimensional composition with merit
of its own as a picture. It's a different thing, when
an object becomes a picture, but one hopes that at least
it can be a good picture!
-Snail
Sandy Miller on thu 27 oct 05
Hi Lori,
I have been using: www.slides.com and been very happy.
Sandy Miller
www.sandymillerpottery.com
Liisa Reid on thu 27 oct 05
Sandy,
What kind of camera and lenses are you using? And have you used your
slides for higher end juries? The work on your website looks great.
Liisa
> [Original Message]
> From: Sandy Miller
> To:
> Date: 10/27/2005 10:12:54 AM
> Subject: slides from digital
>
> Hi Lori,
> I have been using: www.slides.com and been very happy.
> Sandy Miller
> www.sandymillerpottery.com
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
__
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
Antoinette Badenhorst on tue 28 mar 06
I just got my first tries back from Gammatech.com. They turned out perfect.
I can not remember who posted this information, but I can for sure "post it
forward" Good service and good slides.
Do you need sharp trimming tools that will not wear out quickly? Contact me
for information.
Antoinette Badenhorst
105 Westwood Circle
Saltillo MS, 38866
662 869 1651
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.southernartistry.org
Brenda Funk on thu 30 mar 06
It was me who posted, and I'm glad they worked well for you. I also got a
new batch back yesterday. Consistently good, this is my third run with them
Brenda
-----Original Message-----
From: Clayart [mailto:CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG] On Behalf Of Antoinette
Badenhorst
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 11:26 AM
To: CLAYART@LSV.CERAMICS.ORG
Subject: Slides from digital
I just got my first tries back from Gammatech.com. They turned out perfect.
I can not remember who posted this information, but I can for sure "post it
forward" Good service and good slides.
Do you need sharp trimming tools that will not wear out quickly? Contact me
for information.
Antoinette Badenhorst
105 Westwood Circle
Saltillo MS, 38866
662 869 1651
www.clayandcanvas.com
www.southernartistry.org
____________________________________________________________________________
__
Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
You may look at the archives for the list or change your subscription
settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be reached at
melpots@pclink.com.
| |
|
