Re: OT: scanning info for list photographers

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

 





On Fri, 21 Jan 2000, Steve Pollock wrote:

> Raphael Bustin wrote:
> 
> > OTOH, I think C.D. has a valid point here; for
> > most purposes, at prints up to, say, 8x10" or so,
> > 35 mm scanned at 2700 dpi gives us all the
> > resolution we need.  I kind of doubt my Epson
> > 700 or 1160 would notice the difference between
> > an image file at 360 dpi, versus one at 480
> > dpi or more.  In fact, on 8x10" prints of photos,
> > I'm hard-pressed to see the difference between
> > image files at 250 vs. 360 dpi.
> 
> I s'pose that there wouldn't be scanners capable of 5000-6000 dpi if no one ever
> wanted to, er, push the envelope. Personally, I'd prefer not to be working near the
> point of wringing every last usable shred of information out of the medium...that's
> not to say that that's the case enlarging 35mm to 8x10. OTOH, I can guarantee that
> Epson prints made from files of a similar size from larger format film will be
> superior in sharpness, grain, and purity of tone.
> 
> One thing that's overlooked commonly where I work is the impact that subject matter
> has on resolution requirements. It takes a lot less information to convincingly
> portray a sky full of clouds than, say, a macro view of a watch. If your work tends
> toward the former, it's probly a lot less of an issue.
> 
> I frequently have to evaluate files supplied to our art directors prior to
> publication. Quite often they do turn out to be *high resolution* - but in spirit
> only. Oftener than not, there are 300 pixels of noisy, mushy garbage in every inch.
> This is my case for good pixels and bad pixels. <g>
> 


Steve, I don't think any of us would dispute the
merits of medium-format or large-format chromes
or negatives vs. 35 mm -- in general.

The only issue I might have is whether the advantages
of either of those formats would be significant in
an 8x10" Epson print.

What I'm saying is that the printer, the ink, and
the current state-of-the-art in inkjet printing
will be the limiting factors -- not the tonality
of the original chrome, or its grain.

At 8x10" size, the dots on the print (from the 
printheads) and the dithering required to produce
the illusion of contone will present the more
daunting limits.

You're quite correct in pointing out that resolution
alone is not the end-all in evaluating a scanner.


rafe b.

-
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