Thanks Doug, I think you've made me even more nervous about having my slides scanned now! No really, that was all good to know. I'm going to read about GA like you suggested. Maybe I'll just have them scanned at 3000dpi, or better yet, just wait until I get my own scanner :-)
>If you just want to see the sort of thing you'll get, look at >http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/zoom3.html >The last image is a detail from a Pro Photo CD scan. >The images are part of my FA* 250-600 shakedown test: >http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/250-600.html Thanks John, that's exactly what I was looking for. Good examples! rg2 On 9/19/07, John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 08:23:31PM -0400, Doug Franklin wrote: > > Rebekah wrote: > > > > > By the way, does anyone have a picture scanned at 4000dpi > > > that I could look at? > > > > I've got tons. It'll take me a couple of days to track them down. > > I've got a Pro Photo CD lying around somewhere - that's 4000dpi. > > If you just want to see the sort of thing you'll get, look at > > http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/zoom3.html > > The last image is a detail from a Pro Photo CD scan. > > The images are part of my FA* 250-600 shakedown test: > > http://www.panix.com/~johnf/digital/250-600.html > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- "the subject of a photograph is far less important than its composition" -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
