Steve,

It's at the end of the second message.. a 'relative' answer that highlights our need to understand users and uses better.

jt

From Charles Rhyne:

  >Regarding my definition of high quality, as you might guess my definition is
  >not a technical one but a use definition.  I want viewers to be able to see
  >whatever is needed to answer whatever question they are asking.  Thus the
  >quality required depends on the use.  In most cases, I should like the quality
  >of the image of a painting to answer the questions a viewer might have in front
  >of the painting in a typical art gallery.  In an art conservation course, one
  >would want the quality to answer the types of questions on would have in
  >examining the painting in a conservation lab.  On the one hand, one might think
  >that this was too demanding a standard, because it is always better to be able
  >to see the original, direct.   However,. the light levels allowed in most
  >galleries are (quite properly) too low to see everything even the normally
  >inquisiitve public might want to see.  High quality digital images allow one to
  >see aspects of the painting not visible in the gallery, just as using a
  >flashlight canhelp in a dimly lit gallery (I'll send you a recent article). 
  >This I think a really central issue and one I hope to examine in more depth
  >myself.