>The Coast Guard was looking into digitizing its photographic collection, so
>the chief historian took a problematic photo over to the Navy to wash it
>through their system and see what came out as a print. The photo was a
>Sikorsky helo on the ground taken from grass-level. In the original photo
>you can clearly make out individual blades of grass in the foreground, a
>person in the cockpit, and another flyer walking in front of the helo. In
>the digitized printer-printed image, all this detail washed out and showed
>up as dark shadows. Since this technology isn't really close to giving
>publishing-quality images, I don't think the CG will be moving toward it an=
y
>time soon.
>
Please do not confuse a bad digitized image with an impossible technology.
Of course digitized images are suitable for publication-the printing
industry has been using digital scanners to produce the photographs used in
most publications for at least 15 years. What is new is desktop scanners
than non-professionals can use. It will take a while before skill catches
up with hardware, I suspect. I know my scans and those of my students
improve measurably with practice, and with comparison with what others have
been able to achieve.

ivy


Ivy Fleck Strickler                     Phone 215-895-1637
Drexel University                       Fax 215-895-4917
Nesbitt College of Design Arts          [log in to unmask]
Philadelphia, PA 19104

"Never forget that life is like a Fellini movie, and you're getting to see
it for free=8A"