On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, John C. Jernigan wrote:
> I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
> issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output can be
> obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that seems
> still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long as
> great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose the
> one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts?
> (I have been to Wilhelm's site - -
> but he seems to limit his studies to digital.)
> Thank,
> John J.
If that's the logic, why discuss film scanning at all?
Clearly there must be other considerations. How about
improved control over output quality?
There are hybrid solutions as well. Eg, output via
Lightjet or Lambda (onto archival print media, using
wet chemistry) to get around the print longevity issue.
rafe b.
