Re: OT: scanning info for list photographers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



CDTobie@aol.com wrote:.

> I certainly wouldn't
> hesitate to use a good 35mm original for generating a full page ad...

I suspect that that is a fairly widespread standard and one that's made to work
quite often.  In the advertising business, art directors generally try to shoot
as large a format as possible given the circumstances. It would probly be just as
unlikely to see a photographer shooting 8x10 at an Indy race as another using
35mm for an Architectural Digest spread.  Product photography, food, and
architecture have always been pretty *heavily* weighted in the 4x5 to 8x10 range
(I've been guessing that that's no coincidence <g>).

> however
> if your answer is no, I would have to ask why it is (if they aren't even good
> for 1600 dpi)  that 35mm scanners have moved up from 2000 dpi to the current
> rates of over 3000...

My point isn't that the amount of information in a given area of film is that
limited - but that there's little substitute for square inches.  If anything,
being able to see the results of a quality large format scan @ 100% onscreen
should convince anyone of the superior sharpness and purity of tone.  IOW, why
enlarge the media 8 or 10 or 12 times, when you can conceivably get away with
only 1 or 2?  I have to contend with people all day that seem to be convinced
that film is *continuous tone*.

Steve




-
Please turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use
accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for instructions.


[Index of Archives]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [Scanners]     [Gimp]     [Gimp Users]
  Powered by Linux