i disagree with WR. a monitor's contrast range exceeds that of any printed medium and can easily achieve just as good color fidelity. 200dpi color monitors have been with us now for a couple of years and they are able to reproduce everything that can be captured from a color slide. these monitors cost on par with what 17" and 19" monitors used to cost 10 years ago. that is why programs like Photoshop have gamut tools to tell you what parts of your image can't be reproduced in print. you use.
Herb.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Franklin Stregevsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Pentax-Discuss'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 11:57 Subject: Re: The Hundred Percenters > Fair enough, William; I'll recast the question: > > Let's say you viewed a high-quality printout on high-qulaity paper of an > uncompressed, high-resolution digital scan of a dozen..." > > William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > "Unfortunately, since there is no way to view an image on a computer monitor > without taking an extremely hich quality loss, the arguement is moot. Making > the presumption that images should be made for the widest possible > distribution at the lowest possible quality is pretty derogatory to those > who view quality as job one. There is still a huge number of photographers > who are interested in the highest quality standard possible." > >
