>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"