> Why do people insist on scanning film, then pretending they are somehow > making a valid comparison to a pure digital image? To me, this makes much > less sense than making a photographic print from the photographic negative.
Bill, Well, consider a guy like Mark Roberts. As I understand his working method, he shoots 645 film, and then scans it to make digital inkjet prints as his final output. Considering he's not making wet prints in the first place, why would a guy like him be interested in comparing digital camera prints to wet prints? That's where Michael Reichmann is coming from. He was an expert Cibachrome printer for 20 years (that's how I met him--I commissioned him to write a Cibachrome article for a special issue of _Photo Techniques_) but he closed down his wet darkroom as soon as inkjet printing got good enough. He then made inkjet prints from scanned film for a number of years before gradually switching over to pure digital as the cameras got better. Note that even when he was using the D30 for wildlife shooting, he was still using a Rollei 6008 and scanned film for landscapes. --Mike
