Dun't know about downloadtimes, but comparing images "side by side" is nonsense: just get a dual (or more) BIG (21") monitor setup and say goodbye to light table. In fact, on the screen one can see a few images magnified at the same time -- try that with slides! He's either fond of loupes, or has a lousy IT dept.
Now, before flames start flying, I am talking about multimonitor setup. Of course, running Photoshop on a single 14" monitor sucks. Mishka -----Original Message----- From: "Peifer, William [OCDUS]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 10:58:25 -0400 Subject: Digital-Film Wars: To Byte or not to Byte > > Hi folks, > > With all this talk about what was -- and what wasn't -- at Photokina, I > found it interesting to read a short article about a local > commercial/advertising photo studio in the business section of yesterday's > local newspaper. It's a busy studio with big accounts with a major grocery > store chain and several other large clients in our region. > > [The name's Buschner Studios. Perhaps Mark Roberts recognizes the name?] > > The owner stated in this article that while he does use digital cameras to > some extent, most of his work is still done with film. He finds that the > time it takes to transfer images from camera to computer (15 to 20 seconds, > according to the article) is "too slow", and he finds digital to be limiting > because he's not able to line up a series of shots thus captured and compare > them side-by-side. He suspects this may not be the case in maybe five > years, but for now at least, he prefers working with film. This surprised > me, since I thought advertising photography would be most likely of all to > be digitally driven. Seems like this fellow and his partner certainly have > enough business to invest the necessary capital for switching to primarily > digital. Or is this case just a fluke? Or did the newspaper reporter > misquote the typical image download times? > > Hmmm.... > > Bill Peifer > Rochester, NY > > >
