Hehehe......yep, we're getting a tad too serious 'round here......yep, no
doubt about it. Ya see Denton, I'm down here in the tobacca and cotton
fields in South Carolina. I am hard pressed to recall a 8-1/2" x 11"
photograph in anything printed around here, much less in color. Madison
Avenue this ain't. :-)
Your point is well taken, and clearly there is a difference in perspective.
You are also absolutely correct that a proper A4 size, full color, digital
image is *at least* 18MB in size. My specific example was a locally printed
playbill for the local (volunteer) theatre troupe. They needed a re-shoot
at the last instant for a playbill when the regular shooter's lab botched
the processing. No image was more than 3x4 inches, all reproduced in B&W
only. But, it was done very quickly and for next to no cost.
Oh, btw....the show *did* go on :-)
John P
>I wrote:
>When it comes to cost effectiveness and productivity, digital is already
the
>clear leader. With very humble equipment, I can take an image from an idea
>to finished art ready for reproduction in less than an hour. Traditional
>film can't even begin to dream of that. If I had stock in Polaroid, I'd be
>selling it quickly now.
>
>>>
to which Denton Taylor <denton@xxxxxxxx> asked:
>
>What do you mean by 'humble equipment'? And what do you mean by
>'reproduction'?
>
>To reproduce an 8-1/2" x 11" color photography properly on a 4-color
>printing press requires (at least to my knowledge) a file of at least 18mb.
>And that's a minimum!
>
>That's at 220dpi, which is 2x a 110dpi line screen.
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|