Re[2]: [at-l] Digital Cameras

[lparker@cacaphony.net (L. Parker)]

Hmmm, well I just replied to someone off-list regarding slides but this
could use a little expanding. I haven't done a "slide" show in so long I
can't remember when the last one was. But then again, until recently, I was
heavily involved on what many would consider the "bleeding edge" of
technology. My company specialized in distributing computer graphics
technology at a time when it was still in its infancy.

I did many slide shows - but not the 35 mm kind. Mine were either color
transparencies produced on a computer and then printed on a color printer
which cost upwards of $10,000 at the time or they were strictly electronic
using an LCD projector and a laptop, the price of which would give you heart
failure. My customers were NASA, the Armed Forces, various technology
contractors, large utility companies (read Ma Bell) and several of the
nations largest newspapers.

To the point though, I can do a slide show in a theater if you want, with
better fidelity and whets more, interactive graphics than you can get from
standard 35 mm slides. In two hours, I can put together a knock your socks
off presentation that will win multimillion dollar deals. The same
presentation from a traditional ad agency would take weeks and would cost
thousands of dollars. There is no perceptible difference in the quality of
the respective end products. Sure, I can stick them both under a microscope
and point out differences, but short of that, there is no way to tell.

Now as for the first point, one of the discussions at the GA Ruck centered
upon the abysmal print quality on an HP LaserJet printer. My response was
"try reducing the dpi to either 100 or 200 dpi and see if the quality
doesn't improve. I had several illustrations with me that I had printed just
before I left, unfortunately none were on photo paper. I have in front of me
now an 8" x 10" glossy printed on an _inkjet_ at 200 dpi. I want to
emphasize that this IS NOT a photo printer but a commercial CAD printer that
I use for work. The resultant "photo" is indistinguishable to the eye from a
Kodak print. A photo printer will do even better.

Now if you simply MUST have your slides, simply send them out to one of the
myriad printing services that convert digital pictures to slides, there
rates are reasonable and you can pick and choose which pictures you want to
pay for rather than paying for ALL of them.

Of course, if you must, you can invest serious money in Canon's professional
EOS 1D digital camera (http://www.usa.canon.com/EOS-1D/index.html), which
retails for $5,499 more or less...and a HR 6000 SE Slide Printer which at
4,000 lines is a good match for the EOS 1D and then I doubt that ANYONE
would be able to tell the difference.

The point of course, is that unless you are a professional photographer and
perhaps even then, today's digital cameras are more than a match for any
camera a normal thru hiker is likely to carry. Me? I am not carrying my SLR
into the woods ever again unless I just have to have that huge telephoto for
something!

Bob, I will be happy to snail mail you a print...

Lee I Joe

>
> "...Anyone want to make a case for film?"
>
>  Yup. If 3 X 5 prints are all you want, digital may be okay,
> though I would be
>  more confident if a thru hiker who has used digital on a
> 2,000 mile walk would
>  speak up.
>
>  But for a slide show in a big room, nothing beats 35 mm
> slide film. It's the
>  difference between snapshots and photography. However, I'm
> not a technology
>  nut. Why it was 1983 before I bought my first computer.
>
>   Weary
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> AT-L mailing list
> AT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l