Maris wrote:
>I would venture to suggest that a 3-minute exposure using the same exposure
>settings but with today's equipment will result in the same detail.
Having known a couple of artists who did this (one with an extremely
stopped-down lens, the other with night photography), I'd suggest that
you're right. :-)
Slowing down a basketball game that much, however, was not an option. ;-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <mlidaka@ameritech.net>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
>Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2001 14:05:50 -0500
>
>I would venture to suggest that a 3-minute exposure using the same exposure
>settings but with today's equipment will result in the same detail.
>
>Maris
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Lynn Allen" <ktrout@hotmail.com>
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Sent: Monday, June 18, 2001 10:54 AM
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
>
>
>| Tony wrote:
>|
>| >My personal quality stance is that without special care, most 35mm
>images
>| >neither deserve nor well sustain enlargement beyond 15x10 by any route
>| >unless unusually large viewing distances are involved, and I most often
>| >print at A4. I like 'sharp' but don't much like grain in most images,
>and
>| >4,000ppi doesn't leave me with any grief for whatever it misses - but
>nor
>| >did 2,700. However I value more the smoother tonality of 4000ppi than
>the
>| >minor increase in sharpness of fine detail. I guess I'm trying to say
>that
>| > what is 'enough' is individual, depends on what you want to do with
>it,
>| >and how absolutist your dedication to every last lppm.
>|
>|
>| Atlthough this isn't what Tony's writing about, I'm going to "kidnap" his
>| thoughts on this to revisit what I said a few days ago, re flatbed scans
>vs.
>| filmscans, vis a vis resolution and detail. A year ago I had the
>priveledge
>| and oportunity to flatbed-scan a series of pictures (prints) made 130
>years
>| ago with cherry-wood cameras and very slow anastigmat lenses on
>(probably)
>| glass wet-plates, printed on a size-for-size format. The detail was
>| incredible!
>|
>| I now have the oportunity to scan modern color prints made with several
>| smaller-format 35mm &tc cameras, two of which I closely know the lensatic
>| performance of. The comparisson suffers. The old, slower lenses show
>their
>| "stuff," and the smaller format tends to drop some of the detail. This
>leads
>| me to think that the lensatics and medium of the target picture is
>*still*
>| more important than whatever scanner you use, if the scanner is
>compentent
>| in the first place. It drives me up the wall every day, but "c'est la
>| guerre"--that's how it is. OTOH, it wouldn't have been practical to do a
>| 3-minute pose when my daughter was playing basketball. ;-)
>|
>| Best regards--LRA
>| _________________________________________________________________
>| Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
>|
>|
>|
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
