From: Thor Bols (thorbols@hotmail.com)
Date: 05/25/01-04:57:08 PM Z
I unfortunately started this thread when I asked Craig Koshyk if he had
considered using a camera for the book project he is working on. Implicit
in that suggestion was the notion that I thought it might be able to do the
job. Obviously, I was not suggesting that Craig use some Walmart special!
After you communicated an assumption that digital photographs had "fringing"
problems, I feebly attempted to demonstate that was not the case by
directing your attention to some NASA examples, that you had no time to look
at. These examples, which do a far better job of demonstrating the efficacy
of digital photography then anything *I* could say with no substantiation,
were summarily dismissed by you and others because they were 1) too big to
download, 2) perhaps altered in Photoshop (or by other means), and 3) not
valid because they exist on a RGB monitor.
In digital photography, as with everything else, there are continuums of
price and quality. I was directing my comments to the cameras on the higher
end of that continuum, and apparently you were only addressing the lower
end. I apologize for the confusion.
>Then why didn't you just say so to begin with? I asked, never saw this
>answer.
>
>Pam
>
>Thor Bols wrote:
> > ...In the past, I have experienced magenta fringing and other
> > undesirable artifacts in digital shots, but not with the D-1 and the
>660.
> > ...
>
>--
>Pamela G. Niedermayer
>Pinehill Softworks Inc.
>600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
>Austin, TX 78705
>512-236-1677
>http://www.pinehill.com
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 07/12/01-11:29:40 AM Z CST