On 1/2/03 4:58 am, Jeff Schewe wrote:
> For the PEI Conference, I did 20x30 prints of both the film & the captures
> on a 7600 Epson. The photographers in the audience were pretty shocked. Not
> so much that digital won, but by how wide a margin digital out preformed
> film and on so many levels. At the end, I gave away the digital capture
> prints and tore up the prints from the film. The crowd got a kick out of
> that.
Jeff
Wouldn't it have been fairer to do a conventional print from the neg and not
scan it first? After all, film isn't designed to be scanned and printed from
an inkjet but gives optimal performance when printed onto the appropriate
paper.
For example, I would love to see a comparison between a digitally produced
20x30 platinum print on, say, an Epson 7600 and one produced from film using
conventional printing. Maybe it's already been done. If it has, does anyone
have any details?
Kodak have a special stock for telecine (scanning, in a sense) that gives
superior results when digitised than the conventional neg stocks, which were
designed to be output to a print but used for telecine output. I would've
thought the same analogy applies to stills stocks and how they are output.
--/ Shangara Singh :: Photographer
Adobe Certified Expert ~ Photoshop 7.0
PortfoliosOnCD for Photographers
Exam Aids for Photoshop ~ Illustrator ~ Dreamweaver
http://www.shangarasingh.com
===============================================================
GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
