> That was just the point of the article everyone has been talking
> about. The Phase One is overkill.
For some, it is, just as for many, the drum scanner was, but it survives.
If you're trying to sell a product, it may not be. Take clothing, for
example. If you are in the business of selling shirts by the container load,
you want to have photos that show the detail of the fabric. To do that, it
will probably take the Phase One.
For some things, a 20D is indeed good enough. I was just at a friend's
studio today, where he was shooting cans and tube of glue for a national
manufacturer. He used his 20D. The final result would be at best half life
sized. Anything more demanding, and it's film and scanner.
As I observe the discussions here and elsewhere, I am reminded of how the
level of acceptability in many things continuse to decline. I was just
looking at a Burger King ad in a national magazine (Sports Illustrated, I
think). The burger was so stunningly overprocessed that the ad looked like
an average photorealistic painting. Imagine the layers of approval this went
through (agencies again, hundreds of little ulcer factories) and still, no
one saw that it looked like one of those plastic things in the refirgerators
at Sears! Some of the editorial photos were museums of digital artifacts.
I've got a friend that related how he has taken files from 6MP cameras and
reproduced them to 30x40 with a Durst printer, and they looked fairly good.
"Well, you can't look TOO close..."
I'm concerned that a group about photography is setting rather low limits on
visuals and still require vinyl.
Bill Pearce
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|