Maybe reason for viewing bad Fuji 602 pics

I wonder if this applies to the Fuji 602 as it does to the Panasonic LC5s where the printed pics look a lot better than the 'On Screen’ versions, except (of course) that Fuji is not admitting this (or at least no one here has read it anywhere).

This is taken from Steve Digicams review of the Panasonic LC5s. People complained of problems; being that the on screen viewing was less than satisfactory and although different problems, the same “viewing” complaint. I wonder…

“We saw more than the usual amount of 'noise' in clear blue sky areas and there was noticeable shadow noise in the low contrast areas of the image. We also noticed that people's skin often appeared 'blotchy' or even semi-solarized, something that is normally attributed to a lack of dynamic tonal range. See samples photos. Other people that have seen LC5 sample photos posted on the net have made the comment that they appear to be posterized or badly post-processed. After seeing the LC5 sample images posted at DC Resource I feel confident that our camera was not defective, it seems that they all operate similarly.

06/24/02 update: The LC5 (and LC40) images seem to be interpreted in one of two ways, either examined on the monitor screen or the printed results. Those of us that were basing our image quality remarks on the images alone seemed to come to the same conclusion that the images just didn't 'look' right. And then there were those that were looking at the printed results and most of them said that they thought the image quality was as good or better than other cameras of similar resolution. I've said it myself many times, since the advent of three, four and five megapixel cameras we are ‘seeing’ smaller and smaller portions of the image at 100% on our 800x600 or 1024x768 sized screens. We are now being a lot more critical of these images on a pixel level whereas we used to judge an entire one megapixel image on the screen without the need for it being scaled down to fit. We post 640x480 (or smaller) images on web sites and most people don't use images larger than 800x600 for on-screen viewing. Two, three, four, five and six megapixel images are for making prints and maybe we should change our mindset to reflect this new reality. The same images that I said looked ‘blotchy’ or solarized make perfectly good prints on my Canon S9000 printer. Panasonic says that the camera has been optimized for printing and they may just be right about this“.

What do you think?

you could be right....
I generally don't print out........
but when I do I am amazed at the quality (from a cheap Lexmark)

regards ga-ga

Michael Kaplan said:

I wonder if this applies to the Fuji 602 as it does to the
Panasonic LC5s where the printed pics look a lot better than the
'On Screen’ versions, except (of course) that Fuji is not admitting
this (or at least no one here has read it anywhere).

This is taken from Steve Digicams review of the Panasonic LC5s.
People complained of problems; being that the on screen viewing was
less than satisfactory and although different problems, the same
“viewing” complaint. I wonder…

“We saw more than the usual amount of 'noise' in clear blue sky
areas and there was noticeable shadow noise in the low contrast
areas of the image. We also noticed that people's skin often
appeared 'blotchy' or even semi-solarized, something that is
normally attributed to a lack of dynamic tonal range. See samples
photos. Other people that have seen LC5 sample photos posted on the
net have made the comment that they appear to be posterized or
badly post-processed. After seeing the LC5 sample images posted at
DC Resource I feel confident that our camera was not defective, it
seems that they all operate similarly.

06/24/02 update: The LC5 (and LC40) images seem to be interpreted
in one of two ways, either examined on the monitor screen or the
printed results. Those of us that were basing our image quality
remarks on the images alone seemed to come to the same conclusion
that the images just didn't 'look' right. And then there were those
that were looking at the printed results and most of them said that
they thought the image quality was as good or better than other
cameras of similar resolution. I've said it myself many times,
since the advent of three, four and five megapixel cameras we are
‘seeing’ smaller and smaller portions of the image at 100% on our
800x600 or 1024x768 sized screens. We are now being a lot more
critical of these images on a pixel level whereas we used to judge
an entire one megapixel image on the screen without the need for it
being scaled down to fit. We post 640x480 (or smaller) images on
web sites and most people don't use images larger than 800x600 for
on-screen viewing. Two, three, four, five and six megapixel images
are for making prints and maybe we should change our mindset to
reflect this new reality. The same images that I said looked
‘blotchy’ or solarized make perfectly good prints on my Canon S9000
printer. Panasonic says that the camera has been optimized for
printing and they may just be right about this“.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Michael Kaplan said:

I wonder if this applies to the Fuji 602 as it does to the
Panasonic LC5s where the printed pics look a lot better than the
'On Screen’ versions, except (of course) that Fuji is not admitting
this (or at least no one here has read it anywhere).

Click to expand...

snip snip

Michael Kaplan said:

What do you think?

Click to expand...

I have to say that I find the on screen shots more than acceptable. I have a 15 inch Apple flat panel and the 1280 x 960 (1M normal) shots look great. I've only had the camera for 9 days and I've played with it taking about 200 shots. On screen (1024 x 768 setting) the pictures look very nice. My son saw them for the first time today and was really impressed. So was my wife and one of her girl friends.

I have found that when filling the screen, 1M normal looks every bit as good as 1M fine. Shots taken at 2048 x 1536 [3M] don't really look any better, BUT when I enlarge a 1280 x 960 normal it immediately deteriorates, fine mode holds up a bit, and 3M and 6M hold up to produce very large pictures before they deteriorate. I have an HP PSC 950 but I have not printed any S602 pictures on it yet (also have an Epson 800 that is a few years old). I suspect that when I print an 8 x 10 from a 1M normal file, it will be lower quality than a 3M or 6M even though they don't look much different on the screen. I haven't taken that I want to print yet so I won't be able to prove this for a while yet.

The highly acceptable quality at 1M normal has been very pleasing (justified my purchase of the camera - that was made in part based on a hell of a lot of absolutely great shots you fellows have posted here and on pbase [I've bookmarked a lot of those shots and shown them to family and friends and they too find them really pleasing). We are headed to NZ and AU for 2 months next year and that means I can take over 3000 shots if I don't buy a storage device or take a laptop (I'm currently planning to buy an iBook so I can take thousands and thousands of shots and some video (I don't want to bother taking my Panasonic PV-DV710 and the quality of the video from the S602 means I can capture the occasional sequence). We expect we will print very few pictures, but when a scene strikes us as being one we may want to print when we return (or have printed by a service), we will use 3M or 6M (and can do lots of those if I buy an eFilm or take an iBook). We anticipate providing relatives and a few friends with a CD of our vacation holding about 2400 shots.

It is unfortunate that the new Panasonic camera will not be available in Canada until next year (about the time we will return from NZ and AU). I would much prefer the 12x optical zoom (for auto racing shots as well) and image stabilization provided by the Panasonic since I think the 2 megapixels will be highly adequate based on what I've now seen produced by the Fuji. The other drawback of the Pany at this point is the xD media - 256 mb cards will be available in December but 1GB will not be available until sometime in 2003 (and they claim 8GB with a few years). They are not as economical as the microdrive at this point but I suspect the high volume will result in much lower prices within the next year (at this time I understand that every major digital camera manufacturer has signed on for xD EXCEPT for Sony). Fortunately, there will be a shoe available that will allow S602 owners to insert an xD card into the CF slot (the SM is not thick enough to permit an adaptor holding an xD card according to the Fuji rep at the Henry's show in Toronto last week ) and thus make full use of the higher capacity cards in the years ahead.

My 0.02 worth, anyway.

Don

ps. I've been finding the automatic setting is providing very nice pictures. I can see that I've got a LOT of experimenting to do to understand and develope skill in using the manual settings. Most of my manual shots stink.

Michael Kaplan said:

I wonder if this applies to the Fuji 602 as it does to the
Panasonic LC5s where the printed pics look a lot better than the
'On Screen’ versions, except (of course) that Fuji is not admitting
this (or at least no one here has read it anywhere).

This is taken from Steve Digicams review of the Panasonic LC5s.
People complained of problems; being that the on screen viewing was
less than satisfactory and although different problems, the same
“viewing” complaint. I wonder…

“We saw more than the usual amount of 'noise' in clear blue sky
areas and there was noticeable shadow noise in the low contrast
areas of the image. We also noticed that people's skin often
appeared 'blotchy' or even semi-solarized, something that is
normally attributed to a lack of dynamic tonal range. See samples
photos. Other people that have seen LC5 sample photos posted on the
net have made the comment that they appear to be posterized or
badly post-processed. After seeing the LC5 sample images posted at
DC Resource I feel confident that our camera was not defective, it
seems that they all operate similarly.

06/24/02 update: The LC5 (and LC40) images seem to be interpreted
in one of two ways, either examined on the monitor screen or the
printed results. Those of us that were basing our image quality
remarks on the images alone seemed to come to the same conclusion
that the images just didn't 'look' right. And then there were those
that were looking at the printed results and most of them said that
they thought the image quality was as good or better than other
cameras of similar resolution. I've said it myself many times,
since the advent of three, four and five megapixel cameras we are
‘seeing’ smaller and smaller portions of the image at 100% on our
800x600 or 1024x768 sized screens. We are now being a lot more
critical of these images on a pixel level whereas we used to judge
an entire one megapixel image on the screen without the need for it
being scaled down to fit. We post 640x480 (or smaller) images on
web sites and most people don't use images larger than 800x600 for
on-screen viewing. Two, three, four, five and six megapixel images
are for making prints and maybe we should change our mindset to
reflect this new reality. The same images that I said looked
‘blotchy’ or solarized make perfectly good prints on my Canon S9000
printer. Panasonic says that the camera has been optimized for
printing and they may just be right about this“.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

Hi Michael,

Coming from the old school of 35mm, when I first started with digital, using the Fuji 6900 6mg Fine Normal settings, I used to print out almosr every shot I liked at A4 size on my Epson Photo 895, and was constantly amazed at the clarity and sharpness of the prints. These days, being an

impoverished Pensioner I tend to view most of what I take on screen and only print out what is really "keepable" or saleable.

Since I changed to the S602Z I have been very surprised at some of the postings that critised the sharpness of this camera, I have found the A4 prints from it absolutely superb, but after being downsized for pbase they certainly do lose some of that wonderful sharpness.

Some Fujiforumites have been kind enough to say how much they like some of my landscape pix on the Gallery, but the Prints are far better.

I think you are quite correct that some of the criticisms are because people are judging their results from the screen, when they are possibly taking pictures in 6mg Fine which is great for prints but possiblly not so wonderful for screen viewing.

Regards
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

mike533 said:

Coming from the old school of 35mm, when I first started with
digital, using the Fuji 6900 6mg Fine Normal settings, I used to
print out almosr every shot I liked at A4 size on my Epson Photo
895, and was constantly amazed at the clarity and sharpness of the
prints. These days, being an
impoverished Pensioner I tend to view most of what I take on screen
and only print out what is really "keepable" or saleable.

Since I changed to the S602Z I have been very surprised at some of
the postings that critised the sharpness of this camera, I have
found the A4 prints from it absolutely superb, but after being
downsized for pbase they certainly do lose some of that wonderful
sharpness.

Some Fujiforumites have been kind enough to say how much they like
some of my landscape pix on the Gallery, but the Prints are far
better.

I think you are quite correct that some of the criticisms are
because people are judging their results from the screen, when they
are possibly taking pictures in 6mg Fine which is great for prints
but possiblly not so wonderful for screen viewing.

Regards
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Click to expand...

Have just checked out your albums Mike. You have a great eye for a photo. I particulary like your macro shots. You make great use of light as well. Great!

cheers

bill

That images are better "printed" than "on screen" seems absurd. If an image is correctly downsampled, there should be no "fuzzying" of the image at all. This seems a convenient excuse to justify the poor focussing/light-handling of the 602. If photographers tried to sell their 602 stock photos on the internet---with a "they print beter than viewed on screen," they'd have few buyers. I have yet to see a naturally crisp landscape shot from a 602. Many 602 photos have been sharpened in photoshop etc, but sharpening is not necessarily the answer to lack of crispness. Nor should such sharpening be necessary in a $600-800 camera. In fact, the extra sharpening often worsens an already flawed image. Many consider this reasonable criticism of 602 some sort of negative nastiness or a betrayal of poor photographing skills. It is neither. It is simply a well-demonstrated limitation of this camera. Indeed, the macros, close-ups, mid-range shots are outstanding. But the long range/landscapes are poor. As some say, the proof is in the pudding. I have yet to see a basic crisp landscape from the 602. As said previously, even the Fuji 2400 gives better results.

I will soon be posting a comparison page of the 602 and the 2400 to illustrate my point.
Mark

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

bill sherren said:

mike533 said:

Coming from the old school of 35mm, when I first started with
digital, using the Fuji 6900 6mg Fine Normal settings, I used to
print out almosr every shot I liked at A4 size on my Epson Photo
895, and was constantly amazed at the clarity and sharpness of the
prints. These days, being an
impoverished Pensioner I tend to view most of what I take on screen
and only print out what is really "keepable" or saleable.

Since I changed to the S602Z I have been very surprised at some of
the postings that critised the sharpness of this camera, I have
found the A4 prints from it absolutely superb, but after being
downsized for pbase they certainly do lose some of that wonderful
sharpness.

Some Fujiforumites have been kind enough to say how much they like
some of my landscape pix on the Gallery, but the Prints are far
better.

I think you are quite correct that some of the criticisms are
because people are judging their results from the screen, when they
are possibly taking pictures in 6mg Fine which is great for prints
but possiblly not so wonderful for screen viewing.

Regards
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Click to expand...

Have just checked out your albums Mike. You have a great eye for a
photo. I particulary like your macro shots. You make great use of
light as well. Great!

cheers

bill

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

Thanks for the comments Bill, much appreciated
Regards
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Mark_McIntyre said:

That images are better "printed" than "on screen" seems absurd. If
an image is correctly downsampled, there should be no "fuzzying" of
the image at all. This seems a convenient excuse to justify the
poor focussing/light-handling of the 602. If photographers tried to
sell their 602 stock photos on the internet---with a "they print
beter than viewed on screen," they'd have few buyers. I have yet to
see a naturally crisp landscape shot from a 602. Many 602 photos
have been sharpened in photoshop etc, but sharpening is not
necessarily the answer to lack of crispness. Nor should such
sharpening be necessary in a $600-800 camera. In fact, the extra
sharpening often worsens an already flawed image. Many consider
this reasonable criticism of 602 some sort of negative nastiness or
a betrayal of poor photographing skills. It is neither. It is
simply a well-demonstrated limitation of this camera. Indeed, the
macros, close-ups, mid-range shots are outstanding. But the long
range/landscapes are poor. As some say, the proof is in the
pudding. I have yet to see a basic crisp landscape from the 602. As
said previously, even the Fuji 2400 gives better results.
I will soon be posting a comparison page of the 602 and the 2400 to
illustrate my point.
Mark

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Mike 533:

From my perspective, your landscapes, e.g., "Evening Shots" are prime examples of that lack of crispness I'm talking about. If I were purchasing such shots for an ad campaign, I would pass them by...too soft on distant/mid-distant objects when they needn't be.

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

mike533 said:

Mark_McIntyre said:

That images are better "printed" than "on screen" seems absurd. If
an image is correctly downsampled, there should be no "fuzzying" of
the image at all. This seems a convenient excuse to justify the
poor focussing/light-handling of the 602. If photographers tried to
sell their 602 stock photos on the internet---with a "they print
beter than viewed on screen," they'd have few buyers. I have yet to
see a naturally crisp landscape shot from a 602. Many 602 photos
have been sharpened in photoshop etc, but sharpening is not
necessarily the answer to lack of crispness. Nor should such
sharpening be necessary in a $600-800 camera. In fact, the extra
sharpening often worsens an already flawed image. Many consider
this reasonable criticism of 602 some sort of negative nastiness or
a betrayal of poor photographing skills. It is neither. It is
simply a well-demonstrated limitation of this camera. Indeed, the
macros, close-ups, mid-range shots are outstanding. But the long
range/landscapes are poor. As some say, the proof is in the
pudding. I have yet to see a basic crisp landscape from the 602. As
said previously, even the Fuji 2400 gives better results.
I will soon be posting a comparison page of the 602 and the 2400 to
illustrate my point.
Mark

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Hi Mark

I have no wish to enter some long drawn out argument about whether the 602 is sharp for landscapes, I happen to think that it is, but I do agree with one thing that you said, the proof is in the pudding, look at some of the Galleries and you will find many extremely sharp landscapes from the 602, perhaps it is in the hands of the Photographer.

Regards,
Mike533

mike533 said:

I have no wish to enter some long drawn out argument about whether
the 602 is sharp for landscapes, I happen to think that it is, but
I do agree with one thing that you said, the proof is in the
pudding, look at some of the Galleries and you will find many
extremely sharp landscapes from the 602, perhaps it is in the
hands of the Photographer.

Regards,
Mike533

Click to expand...

Mike

I have yet to see a crisp landscape like the following from a 602 (w/o post-sharpening):
http://www.pbase.com/image/5815642

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

Mark_McIntyre said:

Mark_McIntyre said:

I have no wish to enter some long drawn out argument about whether
the 602 is sharp for landscapes, I happen to think that it is, but
I do agree with one thing that you said, the proof is in the
pudding, look at some of the Galleries and you will find many
extremely sharp landscapes from the 602, perhaps it is in the
hands of the Photographer.

Regards,
Mike533

Click to expand...

Mike
I have yet to see a crisp landscape like the following from a 602
(w/o post-sharpening):
http://www.pbase.com/image/5815642

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

Mark

Would hardly call that a landscape, looks more like a middle distance shot to me! you know one of those things that you admitted the 602 did exremely well.

Mike

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Come on Mark, look at it carefully. For one thing the stonework on it isn't particularly sharp. Secondly,it's a small image and a large file size (133kb on a 640x480. And there's no original to compare with. Do you think there has been no post sharpening on that image? I'll bet anything you like there has. That's been well and truly Photoshopped IMO.

One of the biggest problems you'll see with images here is that people try to squeeze them into tiny 40kb files and display them at 800x600. That really degrades the qualitybadly.

You may have point about the 602, I don't know. I see some great images and some awful ones but I think it can do as well as that.

Would you like to try an experiment? Pick an image that you think is soft but nothing wrong with it like under exposure or over compressed form the start, point me to the original and I'll have a go to get something that looks like that with the same file size. I reckon it'll be possible.
regards
Ian

Mark_McIntyre said:

Mark_McIntyre said:

I have no wish to enter some long drawn out argument about whether
the 602 is sharp for landscapes, I happen to think that it is, but
I do agree with one thing that you said, the proof is in the
pudding, look at some of the Galleries and you will find many
extremely sharp landscapes from the 602, perhaps it is in the
hands of the Photographer.

Regards,
Mike533

Click to expand...

Mike
I have yet to see a crisp landscape like the following from a 602
(w/o post-sharpening):
http://www.pbase.com/image/5815642

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

Click to expand...

--
6900

sorry...meant to post the next image in that series...treetops in the distance...although even the shot I mistakenly posted is crisper than many mid-distant shots I've seen from the 602.

In any case, I will post my 602/2400 shots soon to illustrate my point. As I said, i really do appreciate the control the 602 gives me and the fabulous macro/close-up shots. But getting a decent landscape is all too much work for a camera this expensive.

But I'lll let the photos talk for me. Soon....soon.

Thanks for understanding that I am NOT bashing the 602...just making what I think is a very legit criticism.

Just decided to do a run round the forums to see if there are any landscape images to compare with at the moment. It's a bit difficult to say as most of the thumbnails are missing on Pbase at the moment.
5700
http://www.judyarndt.ca/galleries/autumn2/index.htm
S40
http://www.pbase.com/lironh/ao_nang

This thread at the top of the board in the Oly Forum 'How can I improve sharpness in these pictures'
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=3562639
D7i
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=3562639
707
http://www.pbase.com/somewhun/inbox
707/717/75
http://www.pbase.com/norman/root

The only ones that look particularly sharp to me are the 707.
But others will no doubt have their own opinions.
regards
Ian

I really do understand Mark and you really may be right but it's a very common complaint.
I met up with a fellow photographer the other day for a drink. He's got a G2.

I asked him if the focus problem was real and he said 'If I take a picture of a landscape it'll come out wrong at least 50% of the time. I just can't seem to get it to look right'.

I don't know what it is but maybe landscapes just need more resolution. I confess the best landscape shots I've seen are scans from film, or from the D-60. The 707 seems to do a good job too but the colours aren't so pleasing.
I hope you find a solution to your problem.

By the way, I've had a look at your site and some of your artwork is excellent in my opinion.
All the best
Ian

Mark_McIntyre said:

sorry...meant to post the next image in that series...treetops in
the distance...although even the shot I mistakenly posted is
crisper than many mid-distant shots I've seen from the 602.

In any case, I will post my 602/2400 shots soon to illustrate my
point. As I said, i really do appreciate the control the 602 gives
me and the fabulous macro/close-up shots. But getting a decent
landscape is all too much work for a camera this expensive.

But I'lll let the photos talk for me. Soon....soon.

Thanks for understanding that I am NOT bashing the 602...just
making what I think is a very legit criticism.

Click to expand...

--
6900

ianR said:

Just decided to do a run round the forums to see if there are any
landscape images to compare with at the moment. It's a bit
difficult to say as most of the thumbnails are missing on Pbase at
the moment.
5700
http://www.judyarndt.ca/galleries/autumn2/index.htm
S40
http://www.pbase.com/lironh/ao_nang
This thread at the top of the board in the Oly Forum 'How can I
improve sharpness in these pictures'
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=3562639
D7i
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=3562639
707
http://www.pbase.com/somewhun/inbox
707/717/75
http://www.pbase.com/norman/root

The only ones that look particularly sharp to me are the 707.
But others will no doubt have their own opinions.
regards
Ian

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Hi Ian

Well therecertainly are some very sharp pix amongst that lot, and as you said the 707 and 717 ones seem almost too sharp, but I must admit the colours on the 700 series do seem very much on the miserable side of neutral to me, much prefer Fuji rendition.

Mike533

Wellthere certainly are some very sharp pix amongst that lot

mike533 said:

ianR said:

Just decided to do a run round the forums to see if there are any
landscape images to compare with at the moment. It's a bit
difficult to say as most of the thumbnails are missing on Pbase at
the moment.
5700
http://www.judyarndt.ca/galleries/autumn2/index.htm
S40
http://www.pbase.com/lironh/ao_nang
This thread at the top of the board in the Oly Forum 'How can I
improve sharpness in these pictures'
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=3562639
D7i
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1008&message=3562639
707
http://www.pbase.com/somewhun/inbox
707/717/75
http://www.pbase.com/norman/root

The only ones that look particularly sharp to me are the 707.
But others will no doubt have their own opinions.
regards
Ian

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Hi Ian

Well therecertainly are some very sharp pix amongst that lot, and
as you said the 707 and 717 ones seem almost too sharp, but I must
admit the colours on the 700 series do seem very much on the
miserable side of neutral to me, much prefer Fuji rendition.

Mike533

Wellthere certainly are some very sharp pix amongst that lot

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

Sorry about the stammer above

http://www.pbase.com/mike533

Ian,

Many thanks for your comments, and for the kind words re my artwork (fraid I am way late in posting all of it...some new work at

Sacred manuscript for the 21st century:



Sacred relic for the 21st century:



Sacred tryptich for the 21st century:



Sacred space for the 21st century:



Obviously had a bit of trouble taking photos of these because they all contain metallic leaf or powder.

I'm going to try and test as many digital cameras as I can to pursue your theory.

I also agree with your and Mike's comment about color. That's why I've always bought Fuji cameras...great saturation and color (thought the reds are intermittently orangey/harsh). And great crispness (except, imho, for the "infinity" focus of the 602).
Best,
Mark

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

Mark_McIntyre said:

Ian,
Many thanks for your comments, and for the kind words re my artwork
(fraid I am way late in posting all of it...some new work at

Sacred manuscript for the 21st century:



Sacred relic for the 21st century:



Sacred tryptich for the 21st century:



Sacred space for the 21st century:



Obviously had a bit of trouble taking photos of these because they
all contain metallic leaf or powder.

I'm going to try and test as many digital cameras as I can to
pursue your theory.

I also agree with your and Mike's comment about color. That's why
I've always bought Fuji cameras...great saturation and color
(thought the reds are intermittently orangey/harsh). And great
crispness (except, imho, for the "infinity" focus of the 602).
Best,
Mark

--
http://www.macofallarts.com

Click to expand...

--
Mike533

Fascinating Art work Mark, very impressive and thought provoking, wish I could see the Originals, they musst be stunning

Regards
Mike533

http://www.pbase.com/mike533