<x-charset iso-8859-1> ----- Original Message ----- From: <CDTobie@aol.com> > Blowing such a scan up will get you lots of artifacts any way you cut it; and > its what film photographers are used to dealing with, especially from 35mm > film. Compared to that the same number of pixels from a good digital camera > capture are much more enlargable; more in line with a medium resolution scan > of large format film, where every pixel is significant data, and no grain or > grain related noise is in the file. David, I have a question and hope you, or anyone, may have an answer. I haven't used a digital camera yet, and look forward to it. But something I've noticed puzzles me. Much of the offset repro I see from digital camera files are "fuzzy" for lack of a better descriptor. A current example are the Olympus E-10 ads running everywhere. I would think it's down to file size and some rule about running twice the minimum size needed, but I've seen this effect with files I know to be from medium format backs too. Anyway, it's so common I can't believe it's caused by file size only. I remember some reference to "rosette" moirés some time ago, and I've seen these degrade "crispness", and what I'm asking about presently is a similar degradation to what might best be called image "crispness", but no rosettes visible. Any ideas what's going on here? TIA, Dave King - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. </x-charset>