From: Greg Schmitz (gws1@columbia.edu)
Date: 05/24/01-12:52:11 PM Z
On Thu, 24 May 2001, Thor Bols wrote:
> Don't laugh, but have considered using a digital camera for this project?
> Since you are going digital anyway, what is there to lose? The cost of the
> camera might be offset by the money you'll save in not having to scan.
>
> Just a thought.
>
I can think of at least 2 reasons NOT to shoot digital:
1) Digital lacks a full color palate. There is no digital camera,
that I am aware of, that can match (in a technical sense) the range of
colors that can be recorded on film. Except for catalog work, all of
the folks that I know who shoot illustration, editorial and advertising
work are shooting film (and then scanning). The most often cited
reason for doing it this way is color and/or saturation.
2) Digital still can not hold a candle to film in the resolution
department. If the only use of the images is reproduction - fine -
shoot digital. But, if future plans (often unknown in advance :*)
include prints or blow-ups, perhaps cropping a section of the image,
digital could be the limiting factor.
Since the discussion also involves using color negative stocks it is
probably worth mentioning that color negative film does not hold up
well over time. Compared to transparency film color negative fades
very quickly.
-greg schmitz
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:40 AM Z CST