Film or Digital? Arizona Highways on the subject.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

http://www.arizonahighways.com/pag [...] to_Talk803

Interesting article on why Arizona Highways won't use digital images.

However, it's not stopping me from ordering my 20D.


***************************************************************

"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."

John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108266997.055424.41810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The article you link to is a few months old, before the 1Ds Mark II
> came out for sure. They are beginning to tone down only film is good
> enough talk. They do realize that it is a changing world and the
> change is less film and more digital.
>
> http://www.arizonahighways.com/pag [...] 304&page=2
>

I just find it curious that every time someone writes favorably about film,
it seems to be prefaced by some statement about how digital photographers
keep trying to get film photographers to switch, or how they trumpet the
superiority of digital, and then go on to start the argument they accuse
somebody else of starting. I personally don't give a rat's left testicle
what somebody uses to photograph something, as long as: a) they do a good
job, b) the camera used was appropriate for the job and c) they don't
disparage what somebody else uses to photograph.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> The article you link to is a few months old, before the 1Ds Mark II
> came out for sure. They are beginning to tone down only film is good
> enough talk. They do realize that it is a changing world and the
> change is less film and more digital.
>
> http://www.arizonahighways.com/pag [...] 304&page=2
>

They also imply that every picture is printed at 11x18, which is
balderdash. Most are much less than 1/2 page. They are just reluctant
to change to the new technology, because it will require a change in
their work flow, and probably investment in new equipment and software.
It WILL happen, but it may take a few years yet.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108278174.870786.296710@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Skip M wrote:
>> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1108266997.055424.41810@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > The article you link to is a few months old, before the 1Ds Mark II
>> > came out for sure. They are beginning to tone down only film is
> good
>> > enough talk. They do realize that it is a changing world and the
>> > change is less film and more digital.
>> >
>> > http://www.arizonahighways.com/pag [...] 304&page=2
>> >
>>
>> I just find it curious that every time someone writes favorably about
> film,
>> it seems to be prefaced by some statement about how digital
> photographers
>> keep trying to get film photographers to switch, or how they trumpet
> the
>> superiority of digital, and then go on to start the argument they
> accuse
>> somebody else of starting. I personally don't give a rat's left
> testicle
>> what somebody uses to photograph something, as long as: a) they do a
> good
>> job, b) the camera used was appropriate for the job and c) they
> don't
>> disparage what somebody else uses to photograph.
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> The gist of the thread is dealing with Arizona Highways saying that at
> this point in time digital photography is not good enough to do 12 x 18
> inch photos. The title of this article is Film vs. Digital BTW. This
> is of some interest to people who are shooting digital as we are
> interested in how the world is slowly coming to accept digital photo
> for publication.
>
> Nobody was talking about getting film photographers to switch, what was
> being talked about was dealing with a magazine not accepting digital
> photos for publication. As I said this is changing but no one was
> saying the people shooting film should switch, that is up to them to
> decide.
>
> For myself I believe the 1Ds mark II could produce a great looking 12 x
> 18 print, but as I pointed out this camera came out after the article.
>
> Scott
>
I was referring to his second paragraph:
"The thing I find most curious about some digital photographers is their
proselytizing for the digital cause. Why is it so important to them that the
rest of us jump on the digital bandwagon? My own theory is that they believe
the magazine cover lines. They bought into the notion that digital has
arrived, and prematurely dumped their film cameras, going all-digital before
the industry is ready to support it. So now they must convince the rest of
us to switch to digital so their photographs have some value. Savvy
photographers, however, are continuing to shoot film while they learn the
digital technology, waiting for digital image quality to improve and their
clients' workflows to switch from film to digital."

And he's plain wrong about digital camera's inability to get the quality of
which he speaks, and has been since the intro of the original 1Ds at 11mp.
Even my 8mp 20D makes his statement arguable.

Here, though, he has a point:

" Also, the issue of image integrity comes into play. With the capability to
easily alter images, how can we trust the legitimacy of a digital
photograph? Beyond normal clean-up and basic image adjustments that must be
made in the preparation of any digital file, opportunity exists for
unscrupulous use of the technology. For Arizona Highways and many other
publishers, image integrity is important."


--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> They also imply that every picture is printed at 11x18, which is
> balderdash. Most are much less than 1/2 page. They are just reluctant
> to change to the new technology, because it will require a change in
> their work flow, and probably investment in new equipment and software.
> It WILL happen, but it may take a few years yet.

There are people making money by printing digital images onto 4" x 5"
transparencies for "high end" customers. I have no idea whether this
includes Arizona Highways!

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Interesting article on why Arizona Highways won't use digital images.

Keep in mind that about 80% of the images used in Highways are shot on
4x5 or 8x10" view cameras and most of the rest are medium format, so
they are not exactly comparing digital to 35 mm ... I know at least a
dozen guys who shoot for Highways occasionally and all but one use
large format ...the other one actually got a medium format shot on the
cover once but that's rare.

Bill

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <y0LPd.30907$xt.28200@fed1read07>, shadowcatcher@cox.net
says...
> Here, though, he has a point:
>
> " Also, the issue of image integrity comes into play. With the capability to
> easily alter images, how can we trust the legitimacy of a digital
> photograph? Beyond normal clean-up and basic image adjustments that must be
> made in the preparation of any digital file, opportunity exists for
> unscrupulous use of the technology. For Arizona Highways and many other
> publishers, image integrity is important."

Canon has a image-verification accessory for the 1 series cameras. Of
course, it's also pretty hard to fake a RAW file.

But hey, people were faking things with film a long time ago...
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>They also imply that every picture is printed at 11x18, which is
>>balderdash. Most are much less than 1/2 page. They are just reluctant
>>to change to the new technology, because it will require a change in
>>their work flow, and probably investment in new equipment and software.
>> It WILL happen, but it may take a few years yet.
>
>
> There are people making money by printing digital images onto 4" x 5"
> transparencies for "high end" customers. I have no idea whether this
> includes Arizona Highways!
>
> Andrew.

Now if someone will do that, submit it to AH, and have them print it in
the magazine... Then send them a letter, and the original file...
Anyone game?


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sunday 13 February 2005 09:27, Bill Hilton wrote:

>> Skip Middleton writes ... (quoting from Az Highways article)
>>
>>" Also, the issue of image integrity comes into play. With the
> capability
>>to easily alter images, how can we trust the legitimacy of a digital
>>photograph? ... blah blah blah ... For Arizona Highways and many other
>
>>publishers, image integrity is important."
>
> About 10 years ago I was photographing in Antelope Canyon when a
> Navajo photographer came in carrying a 4x5 camera and a card table,
> which he
> left. He returned with a fake Christmas tree and set it on the card
> table, then left again, returning with ornaments for the tree, which
> he proceeded to trim ... this is about 30 ft underground in a narrow
> canyon, where not a blade of grass grows because it's scoured by flash
> floods and gets little light. He moved the tree and card table around
> to various spots, photographing each carefully. I thought it was the
> most fake thing I ever saw, for a nature photo, and wondered who the
> hell would ever buy such a shot.
>
> The next year's Christmas edition of Arizona Highways featured one of
> his shots on the cover (I know the guy's name and it was clearly the
> same tree). I was shocked because I knew how fake the setting was ...
> so when I read that "image integrity is important" to Arizona Highways
> I just laugh at their bullshit

Why are you shocked? Wasn't it obvious that the cover shot was staged
-- on purpose -- to fit the Christmas theme of that issue? Wouldn't it
be obvious to anyone that it was? AH creates such photos on a regular
basis. In fact, they've been doing it since the magazine started.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's called Photo-Illustration.
You must be one of those photographers, where altering elements in a
scenic to improve the composition or even creating a shot, is a
cardinal sin.

I once was out with a group (a large format field seminar) where I used
a rope to tie back a low hanging tree branch that was partially
blocking my shot. One of the attendees had a fit! I was altering the
true scene! It was a deception! I was wrong to do it! When I asked
why it was wrong, he had no valid reason: It just was. I told him it
was only picture, not a candidate for the Pulizter Prize in
photojournalism. He didn't say anything when I removed a few rotten
twigs and leaves from the small stream, and placed, stratigically, a
few perfect maple leaves in full fall color that I had found elsewhere
to improve the shot, but I know he was thinking I was the devil
incarnate and should be driven back to hell. But the shot was great.
It represented what I "saw" and not necessarily what was actually there
at the time.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Brian C. Baird" posted:
"...
But hey, people were faking things with film a long time ago...
...."

One of the biggest proponents of that process was ...

Ansel Adams

EVERY SINGLE ONE of his "famous" photographs has undergone several HOURS of
darkroom manipulation. If you doubt it, read his books, where he describes
the process(es) in considerable detail.

He would have LOVED PhotoShop and Picture Window Pro!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> writes:

>I As much as I believe in digital photography's ability to produce
>great looking two page prints I think it would be pretty clear that a
>4 x 5 inch transparencies made from a digital image, from even from a
>1Ds Mark II, was not shot with a camera.

How about a 4x5 inch transparency recorded from a digital image shot by
a 4x5 digital camera? Do you think you could tell the difference from a
transparency shot directly in a 4x5 film camera?

Dave

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >I As much as I believe in digital photography's ability to produce
> >great looking two page prints I think it would be pretty clear that
a
> >4 x 5 inch transparencies made from a digital image, from even from
a
> >1Ds Mark II, was not shot with a camera.
>
> How about a 4x5 inch transparency recorded from a digital image shot
by
> a 4x5 digital camera? Do you think you could tell the difference
from a
> transparency shot directly in a 4x5 film camera?
>
> Dave

No I don't think they coull tell if the camera was a 4 x 5 inch
digital, but then I don't know of any of these.

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1108334954.878619.176910@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
biphoto@hotmail.com says...
> > I'm reading the whole "medium format" argument and I'm wondering what
>
> > Arizona Highways would do if you showed them a 6-8 frame panoramic
> from
> > a 1Ds Mark II? I mean, it isn't like you're shooting a ton of moving
>
> > objects.
> > --
> > http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/
>
> This is a very good point, I know this subject is not exactly what they
> or anybody is looking for but would anybody argue that it did not have
> enough detail.
> http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/37240858/original
>
> This was taken using an F828

There's certainly as much (if not more) detail as you would get with a
decent drum scan from a medium format camera. The blending is a little
rough in some sections, but nothing a little extra time in Photoshop
wouldn't fix.

Max Lyons wrote PTAssembler and does some mighty fine panos I'm sure
Arizona Highways would certainly publish if they weren't so...
"digital."

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/ [...] gallery=11
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108312757.675465.306170@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Skip M wrote:
>
>> I was referring to his second paragraph:
>> "The thing I find most curious about some digital photographers is
> their
>> proselytizing for the digital cause. Why is it so important to them
> that the
>> rest of us jump on the digital bandwagon? My own theory is that they
> believe
>> the magazine cover lines. They bought into the notion that digital
> has
>> arrived, and prematurely dumped their film cameras, going all-digital
> before
>> the industry is ready to support it. So now they must convince the
> rest of
>> us to switch to digital so their photographs have some value. Savvy
>> photographers, however, are continuing to shoot film while they learn
> the
>> digital technology, waiting for digital image quality to improve and
> their
>> clients' workflows to switch from film to digital."
>>
>> And he's plain wrong about digital camera's inability to get the
> quality of
>> which he speaks, and has been since the intro of the original 1Ds at
> 11mp.
>> Even my 8mp 20D makes his statement arguable.
>>
>> Here, though, he has a point:
>>
>> " Also, the issue of image integrity comes into play. With the
> capability to
>> easily alter images, how can we trust the legitimacy of a digital
>> photograph? Beyond normal clean-up and basic image adjustments that
> must be
>> made in the preparation of any digital file, opportunity exists for
>> unscrupulous use of the technology. For Arizona Highways and many
> other
>> publishers, image integrity is important."
>>
>>
>> --
>> Skip Middleton
>> http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
>
> I missed your point on that and it is well taken. They, AH, do seem a
> bit upset with digital.
>
> Personally I don't really care if they accept digital photos or not,
> although I have a feeling they will be more or less force to in time.
>
> As for his point on image integrity I don't see this as a real issue,
> just ask for the raw files. I don't know many people who can
> reconstruct a fake raw file from a bitmap, in theory you could do it
> but I don't know of any utilities to do so.
>
>
> Scott
>
Even his comment about integrity is a little questionable, since film
scanned digitally is open to the same sort of manipulation as a purely
digital file.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108334657.666404.213560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dave Martindale wrote:
>> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> writes:
>>
>> >I As much as I believe in digital photography's ability to produce
>> >great looking two page prints I think it would be pretty clear that
> a
>> >4 x 5 inch transparencies made from a digital image, from even from
> a
>> >1Ds Mark II, was not shot with a camera.
>>
>> How about a 4x5 inch transparency recorded from a digital image shot
> by
>> a 4x5 digital camera? Do you think you could tell the difference
> from a
>> transparency shot directly in a 4x5 film camera?
>>
>> Dave
>
> No I don't think they coull tell if the camera was a 4 x 5 inch
> digital, but then I don't know of any of these.
>
> Scott
>
Scanning back...though technically that size, it would serve the purpose.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Hilton <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>> Interesting article on why Arizona Highways won't use digital images.

> Keep in mind that about 80% of the images used in Highways are shot
> on 4x5 or 8x10" view cameras and most of the rest are medium format,
> so they are not exactly comparing digital to 35 mm ... I know at
> least a dozen guys who shoot for Highways occasionally and all but
> one use large format ...the other one actually got a medium format
> shot on the cover once but that's rare.

Sure, but the question is why do they do that? A H1D could cover a
double page spread at more than 300dpi *native* resolution.

Andrew.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3i7t01tvk276e2uqsoair79faf61c8n8ao@4ax.com...
> http://www.arizonahighways.com/pag [...] to_Talk803
>
> Interesting article on why Arizona Highways won't use digital images.
>
> However, it's not stopping me from ordering my 20D.
>

I think the article was biased nonsense, actually, and this whole
film-vs-digital debate has gotten to be quite a bore, particularly on the
part of people in the film camp. What's really needed is some sort of
double-blind test in which two photographers, a digital devotee and a film
purist take similar pictures of the same scenes using quality equipment and
the results are printed to glossy magazine stock, then assembled into
several identical portfolios. These, in turn, would be given to a person
who has not been told anything about the photos, who then distributes the
portfolios to a photography-knowledgeable viewing audience. The audience
could be told, for example, that the photos were taken using two different
brands of 35mm cameras and they are to choose and indentify which photos
they prefer.

I would bet there would be no difference detected between film and digital
under such circumstances because the proof of the pudding is in the eating,
not in the preconception of taste. I believe that many film purists when
presented with a photo originating in a digital camera tend to start looking
for flaws to justify a subconscious bias.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:50:08 -0600, dperez@juno_nospam.com wrote:

>So what'm I missing?

Why don't you grab an issue of Arizona Highways and figure it out for
yourself?

While you are at it, go out and try to purchase a digital that can
compete with a 4x5 sheet of Fujichrome Velvia for landscapes.

Good luck.

-Astro

---
AstroPax Photography
http://nikon.astropax.com
---

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill Rude wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:50:08 -0600, dperez@juno_nospam.com wrote:
>
> > Is this some kind of really important magazine?
>
> Photographically it is very important, the work they do can not be
matched by
> digital right now, in 6 months that may change and they will change
as they
> see fit. They will not compromise the quality of their product just
to follow
> some what is now a mindless trend towards mediocrity for the sake of
being
> in the digital world. They don't measure their product by a coolness
factor
> of any sort, they know what's up to their standards and digital isn't
there yet.
>
> >Seems like there'd be about 40 other states with magazines and at
least
> >SOME of them must have figured out its the 21st
> >century and that digital images can easily create prints that'll
fill a page or
> >a double page in any normal magazine...
>
> Name those magazines. We want to see the quality of their work.
>
> >I figure there must be OTHER magazines with the same limitations
because of a
> >misplaced sense of quality or just because they don't want to move
out of the
> >1980's. So, if you're shooting digital you just don't submit to
them...
> >
> >So what'm I missing?
>
> Have you ever looked thru any copies of the Arizona Highways
magazine?
> I kinda figured you didn't.
> Come back when you know what you're talking about.
You have made some very valid points, particularly about looking at the
magazine before passing judgement. On the other hand when I read their
article it did seem to me that they were dismissing all digital
photographs out of hand. So I will ask the question, have they tried
printing a photo from a camera like the 1Ds or the 1Ds Mark II? Or have
they simply looked at the pixel count and said "not good enough"
without even trying to see what it would look like?

There is no question that a 4 x 5 camera can produce a larger print
then a 1Ds Mark II, but will it produce a better looking two page
spread? I think the only way to know is to try.

But part of the article touched on the work flow changes that they
would have to go through to take in digital photos. There may well be
more then the quality issue in there being slow to accept digital
photos.

In the end I really don't know why people who are shooting digital
would be all that upset that a given magazine wishes to stay with film.
The world is going digital fast, what is it to us if a few magazines
wish to keep using an older technology, for a little while longer?

The magazine I am keeping my eye on it National Geographic. They are
starting to use digital and there are hints that they will be doing
much more with digital in the not too distant future.

Scott

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John A. Stovall wrote:
> http://www.arizonahighways.com/pag [...] to_Talk803
>
> Interesting article on why Arizona Highways won't use digital images.

We'll I've never actually seen a copy of Arizona Highways, but I have
heard of a little mag called "National Geographic", and they seem to be
fairly happy with digtial :
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/m [...] -6450-6561

Scott.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dave Martindale wrote:
> "Scott W" <biphoto@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>I As much as I believe in digital photography's ability to produce
>>great looking two page prints I think it would be pretty clear that a
>>4 x 5 inch transparencies made from a digital image, from even from a
>>1Ds Mark II, was not shot with a camera.
>
>
> How about a 4x5 inch transparency recorded from a digital image shot by
> a 4x5 digital camera? Do you think you could tell the difference from a
> transparency shot directly in a 4x5 film camera?
>
> Dave

If you read the article, they are clearly speaking of 35mm style digital
cameras, not cameras with 4x5 scanning backs. And yeah, you probably
could tell the difference -- I bet transparency recorders don't use film
holders...

Bob

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Scott W wrote:
> Bill Rude wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 21:50:08 -0600, dperez@juno_nospam.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Is this some kind of really important magazine?
>>
>>Photographically it is very important, the work they do can not be
>
> matched by
>
>>digital right now, in 6 months that may change and they will change
>
> as they
>
>>see fit. They will not compromise the quality of their product just
>
> to follow
>
>>some what is now a mindless trend towards mediocrity for the sake of
>
> being
>
>>in the digital world. They don't measure their product by a coolness
>
> factor
>
>>of any sort, they know what's up to their standards and digital isn't
>
> there yet.
>
>>>Seems like there'd be about 40 other states with magazines and at
>
> least
>
>>>SOME of them must have figured out its the 21st
>>>century and that digital images can easily create prints that'll
>
> fill a page or
>
>>>a double page in any normal magazine...
>>
>>Name those magazines. We want to see the quality of their work.
>>
>>
>>>I figure there must be OTHER magazines with the same limitations
>
> because of a
>
>>>misplaced sense of quality or just because they don't want to move
>
> out of the
>
>>>1980's. So, if you're shooting digital you just don't submit to
>
> them...
>
>>>So what'm I missing?
>>
>>Have you ever looked thru any copies of the Arizona Highways
>
> magazine?
>
>>I kinda figured you didn't.
>>Come back when you know what you're talking about.
>
> You have made some very valid points, particularly about looking at the
> magazine before passing judgement. On the other hand when I read their
> article it did seem to me that they were dismissing all digital
> photographs out of hand. So I will ask the question, have they tried
> printing a photo from a camera like the 1Ds or the 1Ds Mark II? Or have
> they simply looked at the pixel count and said "not good enough"
> without even trying to see what it would look like?
>
> There is no question that a 4 x 5 camera can produce a larger print
> then a 1Ds Mark II, but will it produce a better looking two page
> spread? I think the only way to know is to try.
>
> But part of the article touched on the work flow changes that they
> would have to go through to take in digital photos. There may well be
> more then the quality issue in there being slow to accept digital
> photos.
>
> In the end I really don't know why people who are shooting digital
> would be all that upset that a given magazine wishes to stay with film.
> The world is going digital fast, what is it to us if a few magazines
> wish to keep using an older technology, for a little while longer?
>
> The magazine I am keeping my eye on it National Geographic. They are
> starting to use digital and there are hints that they will be doing
> much more with digital in the not too distant future.
>
> Scott
>
I had that argument with the printer of a newsletter I edited for a scientific society. The printer complained that my
images weren't 600 dpi. I replied that, first of all, some of the pictures were scanned from old prints, and 600 dpi scan
wouldn't get more detail from the print than 300 dpi. Second, that the newsletter wasn't printed on glossy paper of the kind
used for publictaions that had top-of-line photos. The printer got my message.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:V8SdnQ8YI7A8so_fRVn-og@speakeasy.net...
> bob wrote:
> >
> > Anyone who has shot with 4x5 already knows the answer: Most images shot
> > with 4x5 cameras use the movements of the camera to create the image.
> > The photographer's vision can't be so easily captured with a 35mm style
> > camera, digital or not.
>
>
> What do you mean by 'movements'?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"National Geographic" was once a pretty nice publication. However, it has
never been anywhere near the quality of Arizona Highways.

Go to your local news stand or public library, and at least try to find a
copy of AH ... you just might find out something about how good offset
lithography can be.





"Scott Howard" <scott@hunterlink.net.au> wrote in message
news:4211cf83$0$21290$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> John A. Stovall wrote:
> > http://www.arizonahighways.com/pag [...] to_Talk803
> >
> > Interesting article on why Arizona Highways won't use digital images.
>
> We'll I've never actually seen a copy of Arizona Highways, but I have
> heard of a little mag called "National Geographic", and they seem to be
> fairly happy with digtial :
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/m [...] -6450-6561
>
> Scott.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

RSD99 wrote:
> Swings and tilts.
>
> Do a Google search on
>
> view camera corrections
>
> you just might learn something.
>
There are in fact tilt shift lenses avalible for 35mm bodys
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/c [...] goryid=156
There are in fact tilt shift lenses available for 35mm bodies
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/c [...] goryid=156

A lot what is done with this can now be done using PhotoShop,
correcting for perceptive for instance.

The tilt feature is more to help keep the foreground and background in
focus at the same time, this is not a real issue with most landscape
photos.

Scott