I just discovered I made an error. When I said I scanned to 600-1200 ppi I actually did not refere to "original" but to scanning to a "4x6 print". In fact I'm normally scanning to something like 1200-2600 ppi. What I meant was, that I don't seem to get more out of the negs above 2500 ppi. (I just found out that I can actually type in 2000ppi if I want to). I recall, that someone on this list previously said, he was missed values between 1200 and 3200 (in the default list, in the Epson 3200 software). As 2200 ppi can be typed in, this is not at all an issue.
The ananlog photograph was orinally scanned to 3600 pixel (long side) = appr. 100 pixel/mm = appr. 2540 ppi, then scaled down to 1577 pixel = appr. 1100 ppi. Sorry! I published enlargement from the affore mentioned photographes of the bicycles (the hummingbird Kildemoes logo): http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4714918.html (SONY) and http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4714917.html (Pentax SMC FA 1.4/50mm, Fuji Superia 200, Epson 3200 Photo at appr. 2500 ppi) All the best Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Jens Bladt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 17:43 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: RE: Take a wild guess ..PS about processing. No processing - except of course for scaling. The scanned photograph is however, a more subjective matter, since the scanner will interpret the colours and exposure according to the settings I choose. And then there is the option to scan at higher resolutions. In my experience there is no point in scanning 35mm negs to higher resolutions than 600-1200 ppi (using the EPSON) - the results will just get muddy and grainy - there is not much more to get from the negs - not from the amateur films (Superia etc.) that I normally use. Maybe it's different with very sharp, fine grained, high definition films like Reala, Velvia or Impressa. Or a better scanner. Having said all this, I want to emphasize the point of resolution. I have enlarged the red logo on the bicycle from both photographs. At enlargements so big the logo fills the computer screen - there is a clear difference: The red square looks like a blurry red finger print (finger paint) from the SONY shot. The Pnetax shot still looks like at red logo with clearly definded contours. I have even tried to interpolate the SONY shot to get more pixels. This does not help much. The analog picture remains much better at large enlargements. So if you want a big print on a wall (like a projected slide at 50-100 times enlargemnets - i.e. 120x180cm) the analog photograph will perform MUCH better. Likewise for group photographs, where resolution i crucial. If you want prints in, let's say A4-A3 size, a digital camera will do a better job (sharper, more DOF). So for most everyday photographs/prints, digital is the better choise. This is all provided that the prints are made from scans - not photographicly. That is, of course, just my (present and humble) opinion. Jens Bladt mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Brian Walters [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 25. maj 2004 01:47 Til: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Emne: Re: Take a wild guess Hi Jens Well - eyerone else seems to think that the p4681284.html is the digital and who am I to disagree? The second photo doesn't seem to have the same amount of definition as the first which suggests it's been subject to more processing. Out of curiousity, what's your opinion of the Epson for scanning negatives and slides? Regards Brian +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Brian Walters Western Sydney, Australia On Mon, 24 May 2004 18:44 , 'Jens Bladt' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent: >I took the same photograph twice: >One of the photographs was shot with Pentax MZ-S and SMC FA 1.4/50mm on 200 >ASA Fuji Superia, scanned on EPSON PERFECTION 3200 PHOTO. The other was shot >with SONY DSC F717 at 200 ASA. > >Which one was made with a PENTAX? > >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681284.html >http://gallery46369.fotopic.net/p4681285.html > >Jens Bladt ---- Msg sent via Spymac Mail - http://www.spymac.com
