If I were playing basketball, it would be an option ;-)
Maris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lynn Allen" <ktrout@hotmail.com>
To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, June 19, 2001 8:53 AM
Subject: Re: filmscanners: Scanner resolution (was: BWP seeks scanner)
| 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
|
