Tom,
At 1:02 AM +0000 1/22/02, olympus-digest wrote:
>Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 17:29:06 -0500
>From: Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [OM] Why bigger images are better 4
>
>On Monday, January 21, 2002 at 12:57, Joe Gwinn <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>wrote re "Re: [OM] Why bigger images are better 4" saying:
>
> > >From: Tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>...
> > > > This is why photos for magazine ads are done on 4x5 minimum, with lots
> > > > of 8x10 being used. The minimum is medium-format, used for ads in
> > > > newspapers (with less resoultion than slick magazines). News photos are
> > > > usually 35mm, however.
> > >...
> > >And National Geographic? Their photographers mainly use 35mm.
> > >35mm can be grainless up to 16x20 or so.
> >
> > Grainless, yes. They shoot Kodachrome, I suspect. But the present
> > discussion is not about grain per se, it's about how one achieves the
> > illusion of depth in a photograph. Their photos are wonderful, but they
> > still look like photos, not the real thing. Not up to advertising
> > standards.
>
>Do you mean for products, fashion, lifestyle or ...
>
>I'd like to see some background info to support your thesis. I know
>advertisers are picky, but that picky?
Yes. Art Directors are famously picky. Feed any commercial photographer a few
beers, ask the question, and duck...
I think that Bill Pearce has answered the question about what advertisers do,
and why. See:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 22:50:55 -0600
From: "Sue Pearce" <bspearce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [OM] advertising and 4x5
(in olympus-digest V2 #3064)
>I've also heard that more digital is being used because it is so much
>faster even if the quality is limited.
Yes, and they use a $20,000 Leaf digital camera (or the like) to do it. It
makes lots of sense, even at that price, as it eliminates lots of steps, time,
and other equipment, like drum scanners, which cost at least that much. And
require skilled operators to boot.
For some interesting reading, visit <http://http://www.foveon.net/>. Foveon is
Carver Mead's digital camera startup company, and this represents the best of
current technology. Foveon's best imager chip is 22mm by 22mm, and has 4096 by
4096 pixels, with a 10-stop dynamic range. Their camera uses three 2k by 2k
chips and a color-separating prism, yielding a 12-megapixel image that they
claim to give medium-format results. Dynamic range is 9 stops, and speed is
ASA 50. The camera costs $24K, and has been available since February 2001. I
don't know how well it has sold, though.
Somehow, I don't think advertisers are going to be using low-end point&shoots,
film or digital, for their work.
Time to recalibrate. We seem to have drifted off the original issue. My
original statement follows:
At 9:25 PM -0500 1/20/02, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>At my company XMAS party, somebody was using a 2.1-megapixel point&shoot with
>a built-in pipsqueak flash. The photos were terrible -- looked flat and
>cartoonish, especially faces. Part of this was due to the photo exceeding the
>gamut (color range) of the inkjet color printer, but the photos weren't that
>great on the screen either. They would have been far better off with a film
>camera, even a $10 disposable camera.
The above is a comparison of two low-end point&shoot cameras, and yet it
triggered a religious war on the cosmic merits of digital versus film. The odd
thing was how many people spoke of their wonderful results with their wonderful
equipment, but it was never made clear how these examples related to a pair of
low end P&S cameras. Clearly, this is a deeply felt issue.
It's quite clear that in twenty years time digital will have almost totally
replaced film, and I for one am very interested in what Olympus' new digital
system will look like. Given Olympus' history, it should cause the other
camera manufacturers to scramble to catch up, just as the OM system did in
1972. It should be fun to watch.
Anyway, it's time to stop this thread. Religious issues cannot be settled by
debate.
Joe Gwinn
< 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 >
|