16 Jul
1999
16 Jul
'99
8:16 p.m.
On Fri, 16 Jul 1999, Tony Duell wrote:
But Tony, I don't intend for these to end up as hard copies. That's why I
also have my regular "point n shoot" camera with me, so that I have
something for my photo album. If I was planning to print the digital
photos out on my color ink jet printer then your argument would make
sense.
"Fantastic" being that when you look at the picture you can see the same
detail on a computer screen as you'd get from a scanned photo. As far as
I'm concerend, that's good enough.
Now compare either of those with the original, unscanned, photo. Unless
the camera that took that was a very poor one, you'll find there's detail
missing. They're already out there. But at the moment you
can still do a lot
better (for the money) with conventional cameras. Too many things these
days are simply 'convenient' rather than 'excellent'. I don't mind
having
to learn to do something, having to take time to do something, etc. I do
mind wasting (even small amounts of) time on something that's not that good.
Sure, if the resoultion of the average monitor was 4000x4000 (or whatever)
then my digital camera would be woefully inadequate for my web pages. But
as it is at this point in time, its fine.
Sellam Alternate e-mail: dastar(a)siconic.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't rub the lamp if you don't want the genie to come out.
Coming this October 2-3: Vintage Computer Festival 3.0!
See http://www.vintage.org/vcf for details!
[Last web site update: 05/25/99]