[at-l] Trail Cameras - Digital VS Film revisited [Long]

[shane@theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

> But consider this: The rule of thumb for reproducing an
> image in a magazine like PHoTographic is you need 300
> pixels per inch at the reproduced size.
> For example, a full page in the magazine measures
> 7.8=D7l0.5 inches. So, to reproduce a digital image full
> page in the magazine, you'd need one with a resolution
> of ... 7,371,000 pixels, or 7.4 megapixels.

That's technically true, but not practically true.  I get PERFECT 8x10s out
of my 3 megapixel camera, and damn good 11x14s. (Epson photo printer.) The
8x10s on photo quality paper are so good that even with a magnifying glass,
they are hard to tell from a film print.  If I had a really hard a$$ editor=
,
I'd just print an 8x10 and scan it to whatever size file I want...

> Granted, not everyone anticipates publication of their
> photos but film isn't dead yet so my 5megapixel Olympus
> digital remains a 'fun' camera.

Film will never be dead.  There's just too much you can do with it.  It's
amusing that these same kinds of discussions were being had 100 years ago
between photographers and painters.  (Actually, it was a LOT uglier...)

Shane