ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

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

[filmscanners] RE: Suggestions for scanning 4x5 transparencies


  • To: lexa@lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Suggestions for scanning 4x5 transparencies
  • From: "" <snsok@cox.net>
  • Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 21:33:30 -0500
  • Importance: Normal
  • In-reply-to: <3DB99482.61D2BB3D@adnc.com>
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

>>Why would he waste his time shooting 4 x 5 then scanning it on a
consumer-grade scanner?
Slow 120 on a first-rate scanner will probably outresolve 4 x 5 on a
flatbed, and will
certainly do better in the deep shadow areas.>>

In his situation, it's not an "either-or" situation--he has a local service
produce his 16x20 Ilfochromes which he sells. He had just become interested
in having his own digital darkroom. There is a lot of enjoyment doing it
yourself.

Stan




-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of focus@adnc.com
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2002 2:05 PM
To: snsok@cox.net
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Suggestions for scanning 4x5 transparencies


Get a Lightjet print done on Ilfochrome so you'll be comparing similar
paper. (Use Google
to search for Lightjet and Ilfochrome). This is the same Ilfochrome you get
analog prints
on; it's just that in this case it's exposed by red, green and blue lasers.
I have limited
faith in inkjets in general, and I specifically think they have nothing to
compete with
Ilfochrome, not in dynamic range, not in color vibrancy and not in
real-world-proven
archival stability.

And realize that even with a good scan you may well have to do some tweaking
in Photoshop
to get your output the way you want it. You wouldn't expect the guy who did
the optical "R"
print to just throw the film in the enlarger, push a button, and get
perfection instantly.
Digital or optical, getting from a great transparency to a great print takes
care, thought
and work.

Why would he waste his time shooting 4 x 5 then scanning it on a
consumer-grade scanner?
Slow 120 on a first-rate scanner will probably outresolve 4 x 5 on a
flatbed, and will
certainly do better in the deep shadow areas. Just because a scanner has a
certain number
of pixels absolutely does not mean it is capable of that level of optical
resolution.

As a test, have him get one of his tranny's scanned professionally. He can
then use that as
a benchmark against which to compare his progress with whatever scanner he
chooses.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.