Roger wrote:
> Lens quality problems are not scanning issues. They're
> photographic issues.
Well, yes, but how many non-pro photographers look at their films with the
sort of equivalent magnification you get at 2700dpi? There's plenty of
people who can afford a film scanner who might not check every frame with
a loupe.
> Before scanning, you should have a negative or transparency
> that is sharp.
Agreed. But a photo I might think is sharp, one of the list's Leica users
might think is funny. I don't say that in a negative way - all I'm saying
is that everyone has their own standards.
> If it isn't, scanning won't improve anything.
No, it won't. The reason I asked the question "has anyone noticed the
difference
in scanned results from photos taken with different lenses" was to try to
gauge how important the issue of image sharpness really is. If film is
capable of recording in excess of 6000dpi and I have a 2700dpi scanner,
leica quality sharpness may not be useful to me because the scanner's resolution
simply can't "see" the difference. I'm thinking of spending a whole bunch
of dollars on new lenses. If the difference isn't going to be significant
in the scanned results, then I have lots of other things I need to spend
money on.
So my question *did* relate to filmscanning. Obviously I'll get better
results on film if if use better lenses. I'm simply trying to figure out
whether it's worth the expense for the difference in scans - and at the
moment all my photos that are being published are going to the publisher
as scans from my LS30.
Rob
Rob Geraghty harper@wordweb.com
