Rob Studdert wrote:
> Try 67 on a good scanner, ~95.5M Pixels at 4000dpi so files
> are just short of 600MB at 48b/p
Yeah, but who in their right mind would care enough for
that level of detail in an "image" these days? Surely
noone would be willing to pay the extra costs incurred
over a 6mpxl "image" from a consumer DSLR. Exception may
be made for the sort of advertising agencies that Paul S.
shoots for in Detroit, but lower down the scale most anything
seems satisfactory - cheaper the better.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast
http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------
