Thanks for point that out. I was wondering how he was getting away with 1200dpi, even though I knew he was talking about medium format. I just hadn't put the two together yet. ;-)
On Sat, Nov 27, 2010 at 4:33 PM, Stan Halpin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Nov 27, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Brian Walters wrote: >>> Got my new scanner in the mail this morning. >>> >>> I like it very much. Been fooling around, relearning how to scan negs. >>> It's been nearly 10 years since I've scanned for myself. >>> >>> I've made a couple scans at 3200 dpi and the results are good enough >>> for me. Those scans net me a JPG file that's 5mb and equates to a >>> little more than 8x12 at 300dpi. There is just a hint of softness to >>> the scans, but nothing someone would notice unless they're pixel >>> peeping. > >> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 11:28 -0600, "Nick David Wright" >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't know how 'good' this is but I came across it some months ago on >> a blog I follow occasionally: >> >> http://photo-utopia.blogspot.com/2010/11/scanning-with-epson-v500.html >> > > Note that the blog is referring to scans from medium format film. Your 3200 > choice may be a better starting point for 35mm images. > > stan > -- > 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. > -- ~Nick David Wright http://www.nickdavidwright.net/ -- 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.
