In <F32CT4aJ6pkNzPZrIky00006068@hotmail.com>, Lynn Allen wrote:
> 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. ;-)
>
The trouble here is that you are not really comparing like with like. There is
a *lot* of difference between big glass plate negs and little 35mm. There is a
saying in the photo business about negative sizes - "a good big one always
beats a good little one". That is why professionals use Hassleblads or even
monorail bellow cameras for studio work. They only use 35mm for lightness in
the field, and are willing to accept the resultant reduction in image quality.
I am sure that modern lenses and films will give superior results to those used
on old glass plate bellows cameras, but _only_ if the negative size is the
same.
Brian Rumary, England
