David wrote: Again while I do not dispute the figures or what kind of image a minilab puts out, I find there is something inherently wrong with the concept of a machine as expensive as the minilabs use, consistently putting out far worse quality then a $300 scanner plus a $150 printer. Ok, yep, I forgot to add the cost of Photoshop, whatever that is right now.
This is a little bit of apples and oranges. A minilab has to be able to print 1200 + an hour, no home scanner to my knowledge can come anywhere near that many scans. 2000x3000 PPI is approximately what a IMP DSLR captures, so that is a more then adequate resolution for up to a 12x18" print, the largest print most digital minilabs can produce. Would a good 16 bit, 4000 PPI, scan produce a better image? Very likely. Would the average consumer be happy with the digital minilab print from a decent negative at 2000x3000? Very likely. Would the print look better printed optically? Very likely. Would the average consumer notice enough of a difference to make the digital version unacceptable. Not very likely. The discriminating few will probably keep some traditional labs around for a while. Butch
