Shangara Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
Nope. Then the end prints would have been derived from different processes and the question would be how were the prints made and to what degree was an enlarger lens optical system at play in the sharpness of the print? Beside. . .the prints were irrelevant. My final output is from digital files, whether from film scans or captures. My clients don't reproduce from prints. The test was looking at images from both systems in Photoshop at 200%. Scanning the film, at 6700ppi on an Imacon 848 got all of the image that the film could give. Film sucked when compared to the resolution, accurate color and more accurate ISO, no grain (and very little noise) of digital capture from the 1Ds. Side by side, head to head, film sucked. Regards, Jeff Schewe =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
