4 Aug
2005
4 Aug
'05
4:35 p.m.
On Thursday 04 August 2005 13:49, Tony Duell wrote:
Please, not this argument again...
What he meant is "good enough" quality, for producing calendars or books
from. A 20"x20" piece of sheet film isn't necessary for doing that,
No, I think 5"*4" would be adequate :-)....
One of the main advantages of that sort of camera, of course, is the
movements (you can shift and tilt the lens board and the film back) which
should help reduce perspective distortion. I am told you can process
digital images to do this, though.
How about
taking good quality digital photos of the exhibits and
then
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That is surely a contradiction in terms and a few k$ (or perhaps less) digital camera can
produce "good enough"
photos. In fact, I'd argue that to most people (Tony, as you should
know, you're not 'most people') a $300-$500 digital camera will produce
"good enough" results.
You do realise I paid less than that for my monorail camera. The camera
itself was \pounds 150, a new set of bellows \pounds 40, and the
lens/shutter came off a battered-but-repairable Micropress which I paid
\pounds 50 for. And the results are way beyond any digital camera you're
likely to see.
Tony, I think what you call "good quality"
most people would call
"excessive quality". :)
Yes, but most people have never seen what I call a good quality
photograph....
-tony