This seems to be more of a scanner test.(?) My experience has been the complete opposite. Obviously, personal impressions, also, play a roll.
Jack --- Patrick Genovese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't care what sort of scanner it is, you are now making a > comparison of > > a first generation image to a third generation image. > > The sad fact of life is that if you want to pull the best you can > from film, > > you need to print it optically. > > That is so true. I recently had some prints done from 35mm negatives > shot on superia reala 100. I knew the negatives were good because I > had previously scanned them and was happy with the results. One of > them had bagged me a number of acceptances and hon mentions in a few > competitions. > > Well to cut a long story short I took these negs to the last > remaining > lab who still does colour printing the traditional way using a > colour > enlarger, obviously this is low volume work and it is'nt cheap but > the > resulting prints were just amazing. The detail and tonal quality of > the print were so much better than the scanned version. There was > detail in the print that I had never seen before. > > It is as shame that such skills are being lost.. This guy does hand > printing more as a passion for the art because commercially it is not > viable any more. > > Regards > > Patrick > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
