|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
byard pidgeon wrote: > Well, as I started this thread (this time, anyway) here's some experience > I've had since the first posting. > > I design/edit/produce a quarterly publication for the arts council here, and > do most of the photos...using film. > > This week, I did the most recent issue. In it, I had a few of my own photos, > scanned quick and dirty, using 4x6 color prints, ganged on my flatbed at > 300ppi. Originals on Fuji 400 neg. > > Also had two pics submitted, done with 3-ish megapixel digicams. > > Now, the digicam pictures were completely usable for this > application...but...enlarge them to anything over 100 percent in photoshop, > and the pixelation is very apparent. > Also, even at the small sizes I used them, the sharpness isn't as good as a > scan from a print made using my old point&shoot film camera (which isn't > what I used on the pics in this issue). > > This is really the first time I've made any side by side comparisons, but to > my eyes, film is vastly better. Byard, I think the lack of quality of the digital images submitted to you were either caused by the technique of the photographer (using their digital cameras) or the crudeness of the digital cameras the people were using. And while I still think film is 'king' at this point, digital captures should be just as good if not better given the way you are currently scanning your film images. Harvey Ferdschneider partner, SKID Photography, NYC - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.