I've read a number of suggestions that a comparison
film print be a "wet" print. I gather this to mean an
optical darkroom print. A LightJet print is a "wet"
print, but one that, in my experience, sets the film
print resolution and overall quality standard. The
LightJet (or Lambda) process is, however, expensive
and not generally available. Still, a comparison to a
digital print produced by an experienced, talented PS
geek would be interesting.
Jack
--- William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> Subject: Re: Film vs. Digital - A necessary test
>
>
> > Hi Shel,
> > I think you have it exactly right. My only
> reservation might be
> > number 4. Perhaps it would be better to have a top
> pro lab produce
> > the best possible print from each format. That
> might very well be a
> > wet print from the negative and an inkjet print
> from the digital
> > file. But I'm not sure. I think I would ask a
> photofinishing
> > expert.
> >
> > Wheatfield. What say you?
>
> The Fronteir is the great equalizer.
> The Fuji Frontier scans the negative, and not at a
> particularly high
> resolution.
> I believe that the fair test is a good quality
> optical print from the
> film, and a reasonable but not excessive amount of
> fiddling with the
> digital file, similar to what the wet print gets in
> printing
> strategy.
> Don't compare a machine print from the negative to a
> hugely massaged
> digital file.
>
> William Robb
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
