SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Digital Photography -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (8023)6/20/2004 4:59:28 PM
From: Bill Ulrich  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21647
 
Left "as is", the images would get reduced down to around 2" x 1.6" in layout software. They could be stretched after the import but the image quality would be reduced below even a "lo-rez" standard. Abysmal-rez, I think. Upsampling isn't going to be pretty either, but they'd retain a look closer to the on-screen funkiness inherent in the Eyemodule, just in a print size that's a little more usable. That's my theory, at least. <g>

Of course, he doesn't have to use paper. Book distributed on DVD-ROM perhaps, or even PDF. Lots of non-traditional options in the 21st century.

"Upsampling would rather blow the 640x480 concept, wouldn't it?"



To: Thomas Mercer-Hursh who wrote (8023)6/20/2004 5:00:43 PM
From: Mike Buckley  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21647
 
Michal,

with respect to print process and image size.

And paper.

Have you seen Steve McCurry's book about the temples of Angkor, Cambodia? The middle pages of the book are a completely different paper than the rest of the book. They have absolutely no sheen and they have a hint of texture. The images on those pages take on a look that I'm all but certain are in homage to the early salt prints made from calotype negatives. Rather than try to arrive at a print that resembles publication on the web, you might instead try to arrive at a look that stands on its own merit for its own reasons.

--Mike Buckley