Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/02/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]You all should be warned against publishing hi-res photographs on the web. They are up for grabs to anyone who wants them. Keep the resolution low (find a fit between good looks and low resolution) to keep your copyrighted original photograph out of the hands of thieves. Jim At 04:59 AM 2/3/99 +0100, you wrote: >Andrew Nemeth wrote: >> >It is also largely good enough for web publication. >> >> No offense to Mr Ball, but why do people assume that the www >> is some crap, lowest-possible-common-denominator-will-do medium? >> Do people shoot on super-8 because it is 'only' for TV? Do >> people shoot stills onto miniDisc because it is 'only' for >> advertising? >> Garbage in/ garbage out. If you want a high quality site then >> you use high quality images. And digital capture just doesn't >> cut it in a cost-effective way. Not yet. ;^) > >Super-8 (film) is/was not crap. > >Back to the point: high quality web publishing is achievable today >through any of the 'megapixel' mid-range, consumer oriented digital >still cameras. Try this: >http://www.nikonusa.com/products/imaging/digitalgallery/moosebird.html > >I insist that this is web publishing, not an alternative to print out >high quality enlargements. > >For the rest, I agree with you. > >I have no wish and no need to jump into the digital bandwagon today >because of all the reasons that have been mentionned in this thread. The >only disagreement in this discussion was about the time line needed to >get to the point where digital will take over the 35mm SLR (and RF) >marketplace. Jim says 50 years, I say less than 10. This has >consequences on the way we plan investments today. I sure hope Leica >will start giving clearer signals as to the evolution agenda for the M >and R lines on the matter... > >Alan >