Online is the place to be these days. More and more our digital technologies are bringing us closer together in online spaces -- on content-specific message boards, in newsgroups, now even while web-surfing we linger over image collections that heretofore were unknown to us.

Popular eZines are taking over where hard copy publications once reined.

In this new online world of ours we are not only sharing our images but we are comparing the cost and models of CompactFlash cards, arguing about CRT's versus LCD's even as we debate the merits of phantom megapixel bodies that haven't even hit the marketplace yet. We collectively agonize over calibration schemes for Epson's latest line of pigment-based photo inkjet printers while we traverse the slippery slopes of Verbatim CD-R's versus Mitsui's Gold Standard CD-R's -- not to mention the even slipper slopes of Adobe's future plans for layer support for 16-bit files.

Yes, pixels are in.

It wasn't so many years ago that things like adjustment layers or Digital Ice were foreign to most of us. How many of us now despair over the possibility of accidentally overwriting an archival file in Photoshop? sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) color spaces are constantly on the tips of our tongues these days, as are things like layer masks, the Monitor Spyder Sensor, MacBibble (that's Bibble for you PCers), the "lossy" JPEG format -- now there are even duotone and quadtone inks and 5000K light sources that we must be concerned with!

A TIFF, if you recall, used to be a disagreement between lovers. Now everyone knows Rob Galbraith's test results, which are a testament to the improved performance of the latest Intel Pentium IV 3.06GHz processor. Now we even have to worry about exit rollers and things like 'Flash Media' and 'Java Script' and IEEE FireWire ports and unsharp mask zoomed at 100%.

It's commonplace today to analyze histograms and even the g-a-p-s in the histogram (making it look like a comb) that are caused by virtually all tonal and color adjustments. (Did you know that?)

Too, we know that we can virtually eliminate the possibility of banding by scanning at 14-bit per channel (resulting in a 16-bit per channel file, but with only 14-bits per channel of information), and do as much of our editing as possible while the file is still in 16-bit per channel mode. And, when (or if) we convert the image to 8-bit per channel, we know that we still have enough tonal range on all channels to compress it down to the 256 shades per channel without any gaps in the histogram.

(I knew that).

The big news is that the Microdrive will take a four-fold leap in capacity at the end of this year. Says Hitachi Global Storage Technologies: "The areal density of the 4GB Microdrive is made possible by using a new five-layer version of Hitachi's patented "Pixie Dust" media technology. This data storage breakthrough is achieved by taking a three-atom-thick layer of the element ruthenium, a precious metal similar to platinum, and sandwiching it between three magnetic layers." Of course, like all things with moving parts, you have to be careful not to drop these buggers.

Do you ever, like me, get the feeling that we are reinventing the English language as we speak?!

When we communicate with each other online these days we preference things with statements like "My environment is PS7 on a dual PIII 866 w/1.75G of RAM (running Win2K). I'm scanning with a Minolta Scan Multi Pro and I'm printing to an Epson 2200."

Whatever that means -- I think it has to do with Photoshop sucking up RAM but I am not sure. I do know that my dual processor Mac G4 running Jaguar has it all over Win2K. Heheh.

But is there a way to tell Photoshop to give back unused RAM, we ask? -- another unanswered question today. The conventional wisdom is that there really isn't a way to give memory back to the operating system once Photoshop has claimed it but for all I know, that may be another PC thing.

Someone asked Tim Grey of DDQ: " I want to make 12.5 x 15.5 inch prints of an original (16x20) water color painting. With the canon I get a .tif file of 2274 x 1704 at 180 pixels/inch. Would I get best quality by using the digital camera and trying to change the file size to 12.5 x 16.5 at 360 dpi, (if so could you please give me a quick step by step for the best resizing procedure) or should I shoot the art work with slide film and scan the slide. Or do you have an even better idea? I will be using Epson's Watercolor paper."

If you are still breathing after reading the above question then you will be happy to know that Tim recommends working with digital in this situation although, depending upon the tools you have available to you, film might still be your best option he says.

So you see? Film is not lost yet! The bottom line is, if you haven't already invested your entire life's savings on the latest and greatest digital equipment then you don't have a prayer in today's digital era. You should definitely stick to film in that case. No matter that Kodak tomorrow will be downsizing their emulsion development programs. You will need to make room in your refrigerator for a couple of year's supply of Ectachrome and hope for the best.

And if you believe that, well, I have this great little piece of property in Northern Minnesota that I would love to interest you in.

Resolution, as you well know, effectively controls how large you can reproduce the final image. Says Tim again: "The degree of compression affects the overall quality of the image. Most digital cameras produce very good images at their moderate compression setting (generally referred to as Fine). Below that, artifacts and other problems in the image can become obvious, which can also impact how large you are able to print the image. It is a fine balancing act, making compromise a real challenge."

I know exactly what he means. I do it all the time -- I compromise every time I turn around and my digital desktop isn't even that big! Why, I bet any number of folks reading this essay right now can one-up my 235 gigs of desktop storage.

All we can talk about now is going to Guatemala in a month, and taking with us a Canon D60 (or Nikon D1x) and a 1 Gb microdrive. We'd like to download the images each evening and would rather not drag our laptop along. Arrrrghhh! The problems we face!

Yes, but it's not the one you think. APPLE just came out with a sweet little silver 12-incher. That's my solution. I want something that I can read in my old age.

Happy pixelating!

Ask Tim Grey?