Chris Brogden replied to my comments on a local commercial photographer and
his attachment to film, vs. digital:
>> 15 to 20 seconds [download time from camera to computer] is "too
>> slow"
>And how long does it take to develop film?
>> He finds digital to be limiting because he's not able t
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Peifer, William [OCDUS] wrote:
> He finds that the time it takes to transfer images from camera to
> computer (15 to 20 seconds, according to the article) is "too slow"
And how long does it take to develop film?
> and he finds digital to be limiting because he's not able to
And also not surprising to see big electronic companies, like Sony, trying
to convince us that film is dead.
DG
At 01:11 PM 10/1/02 -0400, you wrote:
>This is one report by a non photographer. The information is therefore
>anecdotal in nature. If you are looking for meaningful information on
Mishka wrote:
> Dun't know about downloadtimes, but comparing images "side by side"
> is nonsense: just get a dual (or more) BIG (21") monitor setup and say
> goodbye to light table
I can see where this approach could be problematic, though. Six or eight
different shots (Polaroids, maybe?) t
;'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:58:25 -0400
Subject: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte
>
> Hi folks,
>
> With all this talk about what was -- and what wasn't -- at Photokina, I
> found it interesting to read a
Hi folks,
With all this talk about what was -- and what wasn't -- at Photokina, I
found it interesting to read a short article about a local
commercial/advertising photo studio in the business section of yesterday's
local newspaper. It's a busy studio with big accounts with a major grocery
store
6 matches
Mail list logo
