4 Aug
2005
4 Aug
'05
1:21 p.m.
>>>> "Patrick" == Patrick
Finnegan <pat at computer-refuge.org> writes:
Patrick> On Thursday 04 August 2005 13:49, Tony Duell wrote:
> > How about taking good quality digital photos
of the exhibits and
> > then
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ That is surely a contradiction in
> terms
Patrick> Please, not this argument again...
Patrick> What he meant is "good enough" quality, for producing
Patrick> calendars or books from. A 20"x20" piece of sheet film
Patrick> isn't necessary for doing that, and a few k$ (or perhaps
Patrick> less) digital camera can produce "good enough" photos. In
Patrick> fact, I'd argue that to most people (Tony, as you should
Patrick> know, you're not 'most people') a $300-$500 digital camera
Patrick> will produce "good enough" results.
Certainly the kind of resolution that professional photographers would
look for to make calendar-grade photos is readily available in the
upper end of consumer digital cameras. Pros probably aren't using
that, but the reasons for that are more in areas like swappable lenses
and the ability to take lots of shots quickly, rather than in the
resolution.
Fanatics can get cameras with many tens of megapixels, and if you want
a 30 by 50 inch photo you might want to rent one of those. But for
8x10 that's excessive.
paul