In processing, the raw files were interpolated up to the max possible in 16bit in Camera RAW, then Photokit's excellent Capture Sharpner was applied in 16bit, then images were converted to 8bit & cropped slightly, resulting in files of about 55MB. They are better quality files than I could have obtained using 6x7 neg film scanned on our Imacon PrecisionII.
Client asks whether the files are good enough to be used for "larger purposes". Before I can say anything, AD states that files are perfect for intended use, but for "larger purposes" he would re-photograph digital printouts onto 5x4 film and scan the film to produce the required larger files.
I suggest that as they were good quality files it would be much better to interpolate up slightly, besides the subject matter doesn't warrant extremely fine detail images at several hundred mega bytes. They weren't convinced.
Reminds me of submissions to a certain photo-library years ago, before they accepted digital: I had to do Epson prints of my digital files, obtained from 35mm, 6x7 to 5x4 mostly neg film, then re-photograph the prints onto 5x4 tranny, & submit these to the library which they would then scan themselves to convert back to digital files of about 50+MB!
Surely it's always better to interpolate up a good quality file by a few steps followed by some sharpening than to transfer the digital image to ink on paper, then to film which is then scanned, thus losing information at each stage?
Tariq Dajani ------------------------------------------- www.tariqdajani.com
=============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
