Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 01:01:45 -0700 From: Doug Hardie <bc979@lafn.org> To: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> Cc: Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com>, lsp3@gte.net, wyrdwulf@catskill.net, stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: digital camera Message-ID: <f04330167b72a86bb5944@[10.0.1.100]> In-Reply-To: <15108.52758.732889.211897@guru.mired.org> References: <200105180150.f4I1ovS17332@mail-1.catskill.net> <003601c0df57$813bc2a0$44a4a518@we.mediaone.net> <20010517222006W.jkh@osd.bsdi.com> <15108.52758.732889.211897@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 2:24 -0500 5/18/01, Mike Meyer wrote: >Jordan Hubbard <jkh@osd.bsdi.com> types: >> Though nowhere near as easy to use as Digital cameras. You still need >> to send the film off to be developed and then you'd better have a good >> scanner if you want the resulting images to look any good. I wouldn't >> even bother with that approach - whenever we get my girlfriend's >> pictures back (she's hopelessly wedded to the analog), we just get it >> on PhotoCD as well. > >That's the ticket. For ease of use, a digital camera is unbeatable - >assuming it's supported. Take the camera home, transfer the pictures, >and you're done. For quality, using a film camera and getting it >scanned to Photo CD from the negative gets you excellent resolution, >and skips the step of going to paper first, and all the extra noise >that can entail. > > <mike > The problem with the scan to photo CD is the average 18%gray they use for the exposure. If your pictures are at all unusual lighting, they don't come out well unless you pay a bundle to have them hand reviewed. I got too frustrated with the results from that and got a Nikon Cool Scan III film scanner and do my own now. The results are much better. -- -- Doug To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f04330167b72a86bb5944>