Re: darkroom vs. desktop

Robert Hildebrand <hildeb@gte.net> · Sat, 17 Jul 1999 11:44:54 -0700

<x-html><!x-stuff-for-pete base="" src="" id="0"><!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Hi&nbsp; Russell and Rafe B.&nbsp;&nbsp; f
 I think you&nbsp; disagreement are a mater of semantics.&nbsp;&nbsp;
Sense there is NO&nbsp; optical information&nbsp;
on film past the grain
 of that film, then the appearance of the grain structure itself
is what is "much Better".&nbsp; The fault is in "much better".
 I think&nbsp; a better explanation or use of terms is desirable.
But a 4000 dpi scan of that same 400 speed
 >film looks much better, producing 8X10s that are almost the equal
of 100
 >speed film scanned with the 2400 dpi scanner!
 I don't&nbsp; doubt&nbsp; what you are saying,&nbsp; others have said
the same thing that a 4k scan&nbsp; of a grainy negative is Better
then a 2k scan.&nbsp; Why?&nbsp;&nbsp; What is Better?&nbsp; Is
it the appearance of the grain itself. Is it a tonal range?&nbsp;&nbsp;
I think Russell said that the&nbsp; image he was looking at was a grain
less 8x10.&nbsp; Please correct me if I am&nbsp; wrong,&nbsp; I am trying
to learn,&nbsp; not being right in an argument.&nbsp; All I have to work
with is Nikons LS 1000,&nbsp;&nbsp; I don't have a 4k scanner to run tests.
 Robert H.</html>

</x-html>