in the email??
Good Luck!
Edley.
From: John Carmichael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Roger Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Copies to: Sundial List sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de
Subject:Maximizing photo quality
Date sent
: John Carmichael [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Roger Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Sundial List sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de
Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 5:19 PM
Subject: Maximizing photo quality
Hello Bill Roger:
After having reviewed and edited at least a couple hundred photos
Tony Moss wrote:
John et al,
So here's my two questions to Bill:
1. How much did your camera cost (If you don't mind telling)?
2. Does your camera have changeable lenses?
2. Since it is digital, can you make a close-up shot digitally without a
close up or telephoto lens?
3. How close
Message text written by INTERNET:sundial@rrz.uni-koeln.de
A word to the wise - OPTICAL zoom is the thing. Digital 'zoom' just
clips the middle from the image.
Exactly right. However, worse than that Tony (at least with my 3.3MPxl
Canon) when set to use Digital Zoom the wretched thing doesn't
Patrick contributed:
Few if any 'home produced' prints are suitable for submission to
a 'High Resolution Archive'. I have an Epson printer and their inks are
said to be very stable (10 years appears in the literature frequently) My
experience is that changes can be often be seen in 6 months
Hello Bill Roger:
After having reviewed and edited at least a couple hundred photos sent to me
from everybody at the conference, I had a chance to compare the photo qualty
produced by several different methods. My goal was to find out which method
produced the finest and sharpest digital on
John et al,
So here's my two questions to Bill:
1. How much did your camera cost (If you don't mind telling)?
2. Does your camera have changeable lenses?
2. Since it is digital, can you make a close-up shot digitally without a
close up or telephoto lens?
3. How close to your subject can you
