Mishka wrote: > 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....
I can see where this approach could be problematic, though. Six or eight different shots (Polaroids, maybe?) taken under six or eight different lighting conditions would be easy to compare side-by-side. Six or eight different monitors side-by-side doesn't sound practical at all. Even if so many monitors could be properly calibrated, wouldn't the typical 72-dpi resolution of a typical monitor be a serious limiting factor? Seems like comparing higher-resolution prints, rather than screen images, would be better. No? If that's indeed the case, then maybe this fellow's decision not to go digital at this time has to do with the time it takes to make "instant" prints from digital images. Bill Peifer Rochester, NY
