bmaxey1@juno.com
Date: 05/13/01-04:05:27 PM Z
>>First let me say I'm pretty quick to disagree with anyone who slights
>>digital processes as a feasible or viable means to alternative process
>>production. I just know too much about the beast to believe otherwise.
>>Having said that, I want it to be clear I believe ALL methods are
>>valuable, valid, and valiant. Everybody here is serious or dedicated
(or
>>slightly deranged).
I think my point was not too clear about digital Vs. Film. I know many
use digital negatives, but if you compare digital to film is the clear
winner in many cases. Not from a speed issue - you got me there. Digital
is the clear winner, and you can do your work from a nice, clean,
chemical free environment. Sometimes I think working chemical free is
more desirable.
>>However, there are still points you make which are either missing my
>>point(S) or are generally inaccurate with regards to digital negatives.
>>By the term "digital negatives" I'm also referring to image setter
>>negatives made on high resolution lith film by extremely precise laser
>>technology -- what is standard in the printing industry (where I used
to work).
True, but who here can afford an image setter? Not as many as can afford
a less expensive output device. I have a scanner - an Epson. I bought it
because yes, I can't live without digital - I need to scan drawings and
photographs of obsolete motorcycle parts. No I can't photograph again, as
they are not manufactured. So I do need a digital system to earn a
living.
However, I wondered how big of a file I would end up with at the
scanner's full resolution. I scanned a catalog cover, in black and white
and the file size was huge. At 1200 DPI, file size was 236.71 mb. At 7200
DPI it was 8.32 Gigs, and at full resolution of 9600 DPI it was over 14
Gigs. This was B/W - color was far, far worse.
So I will put this simple question out to everyone who wants to answer.
Please convince me about this, but if I want to work at the highest
possible resolution, for the best possible level of quality, What do I
do? I certainly can't scan the tens of thousands of color images I have
to scan for inclusion in a catalog at highest resolution.
Do the math - what kind of computer system do I purchase that will handle
a huge catalog of parts and literature containing even 500 images if
every image is at full resolution?
I do not think I can. Even in B/W, it can't easily be done. So I must use
smaller file sizes. This means with all this great digital technology, I
can't use it to its best advantage. Personally, it makes little sense to
me to have systems that can't be used to their fullest.
With my 4 x 5, everything I need is in the negative. I can print it at
its maximum resolution, and will always be able to do so. Regardless of
how good digital gets, I will always have a negative that I do not have
to worry about. As we all know, what is good today will be replaced
tomorrow with more quality and more cost. Film is not this way. Digital
will always mean changing equipment as it gets better and to stay ahead
of the quality curve, you will be forced into replacing your stuff.
With film, I can store hundreds of 8 x 10 negatives in my existing files
and I already have them at their highest possible resolution
I do not want an argument, but I would like someone to at least consider
my position that film many advantages over digital systems. Remember, we
all can't or would want to try to afford digital systems that offer the
best possible quality.
Now, as for digital negatives, I would guess that most here are
satisfied. I can't really argue that we all need extreme quality in all
cases. I will also admit that if someone is satisfied with what they are
getting, perhaps that is enough. For me, however, I will always use film
because of many factors.
B.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:39 AM Z CST