I aint buying it, quality glossy BW (wet) photo paper did better than 12 dots/lines per mm. (300dpi) 300 dpi is near the limit of human vision, the wet paper was way better than that. It wasnt marginal.
JC O'Connell (mailto:[email protected]) "Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom" - Thomas Jefferson -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 10:17 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: K20D as Scanner ----- Original Message ----- From: "JC OConnell" Subject: RE: K20D as Scanner > this makes no sense, one has to assume these and most > old prints where negs are lost are analog wet prints > and the resolution of said prints is going to be higher > than modern digital 300 to 360 dpi prints. > > Actually, you are completely wrong on that assumption. Apparently I should have written a shorter post to allow you to soak it all up. Older B&W prints will not exceed 300 ppi resolution, the paper resolution just isn't higher than that, and as a general rule, resolution will be far less because few people used the best cameras and best technique, and the drug store printing that was done back then was all over the place for sharpness as well. John, there isn't much point in continuing this. This is, to a great extent what I did for a living up until a few years ago, I know of what I speak. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
