On Wed, 6 Jul 2005 18:22:17 -0400 (EDT), Lucie wrote: >As a side issue, the funding agencies seem to think that digital >photography is sufficient for my needs. I am trying to argue that a >competent professional photographer using a high end lense camera can made >clearer and more detailed photographs of textiles and that the quality of >the prints, enlargements and reproductions merits the apparent high cost. >I also argue that a standard photograph well processed by a competent >photographer that understands archival needs has a much longer useable >lifespan than today's digital photograph no matter how well taken. What do >you think?
I think that there are two issues here. One is who takes the photographs, the other is what medium is used. A professional photographer who is used to taking archive photographs of textiles will give you better results whether digital or film is used. I have dabbled in photographing textiles myself as an amateur, and I have to say it is a lot more difficult than photographing 3 dimensional objects; woven textures give particular problems with interference patterns in digital photos. So I think that you need a professional photographer with textile experience. If the budget runs to a professional photographer, it might be worth asking what the cost would be to do both digital and film in the same session. I suspect that a lot of the time goes into setting up shots, so adding digital photos to a film shoot might not be much extra. -- We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. - Jonathan Swift Steph Peters [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tatting, lace & stitching page <http://www.sandbenders.demon.co.uk/index.htm> - To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
