Indefinitely, probably. If that's what you get with a D1, think about all
those small newspapers that use cheaper digital point and shoots for their
photography. I use one when there's no other option that will get a picture
to press immediately. When you already have low resolution and loss of
detail, the press' 30% dot gain doesn't do you any favors -- and that's just
if the guys in the press happen to be paying attention that day. I still use
film -- I definitely prefer the quality.
But newspapers and other print media are so in love with the sheer speed of
digital photography I believe, especially in the newspaper business, digital
is here to stay. It's cost effective enough, even if the quality's crappy,
that management isn't going to let it go.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Adam" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE 59
> My point is, even within the same newspaper, you can usually tell what
> was done with a digital camera vs. the classical one. The moment they have
to
> enlarge a digital image, they introduce artifacts. They are dealing with
very
> large discrete pixels, which will be interpolated when enlarged. The data
between
> two pixels is JUST NOT THERE to begin with, and it shows. The fact that
they
> don't give a dam about quality just compound the effect. Twenty or thirty
years
> from now, some student writting a thesis will study the newspaper
archives, and
> plot a graph of the quality of images over time. There will be a big dip
at the
> introduction of the D1.
>
> How long this dip will last, who knows.
>
> Michel
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 5:49 PM
> Subject: Re: Bodies Roll Call UPDATE 59
>
>
> > In a message dated 2/16/01 7:21:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > writes:
> >
> > << And if the results of all those N* D1 pictures I see in the newspaper
are
> > any indication, you can spot that crappy quality all the time. >>
> >
> > I don't want anyone to think I've gone soft on digital just because I
say:
> > what else would you expect the images to look like, when they are
printed on
> > 30% recycled ~newsprint~?
> >
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||
> >
> >
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
||
> >
> > ||||
> > HELP! My blue-face SEIKO watch, bought in Thailand in 1964, has stopped
> > working. Worse, ~ALL~ the watchmakers-repairmen in this town of 350,000,
> > (metro of 450,000), are gone.
> > Who knows A SEIKO authorized place where I can send my SEIKO for repair?
> > *I won't get back down to Florida where there are SEIKO repair
facilities
> > before April.
> >
> > Mafud
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > -
>
>
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
>
>
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
