On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Jack Davis wrote:
... Someone recently offered a passing comment that an optical print is "probably better than a digital". ...
Both the ambivalent expression and the lack of any clear idea of what "better" means makes me regard this as a statement with little actual meaning, more the emotional sentiment of someone who prefers older means of making photographic prints than any real information.
... Not wanting to take on the total meaning of "better", let me comment only about sharpness. I've have a rather large inventory of optical prints that from time to time have required duplication. As a result, I've needed a number of 35mm and 6x6cm images scanned (50mp - 100mp)from which to make the prints. IMO, In all cases, the digital/inkjet/lightjet prints appear sharper than their optical equivalents. All work has been done by quality full service labs. I admit to a "sharpness" fixation. What has been your experience?
Sharpness is a perceptual quality related to edge contrast; resolution is a separate albeit quality in a print.
Good quality prints, either wet lab or digitally produced, can be equally sharp. It all depends upon how you see sharpness and how well the print was created with your view of sharpness in mind. Print originals which are rephotographed or scanned usually have greater contrast than the original and can appear "sharper" to the eye.
Without assessing the specific print originals and duplicates you are looking at, saying anything more would be wholly conjecture.
Godfrey
