From: Pam Niedermayer (pam_pine@cape.com)
Date: 05/24/01-03:26:26 PM Z
There's another reason, even in the 3 MP digitals, not sure about 6
MP. This is a backlighting problem that causes blue fringing in the
transition area between bright and dark. It's ugly, uncontrollable
except in Photoshop, and only then with a lot of work, seems to be
endemic to the CCD's used for image capture.
Pam
Greg Schmitz wrote:
>
> 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
-- Pamela G. Niedermayer Pinehill Softworks Inc. 600 W. 28th St., Suite 103 Austin, TX 78705 512-236-1677 http://www.pinehill.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:40 AM Z CST