Re: filmscanners: what defines this quality?

[rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>]

At 08:28 AM 6/19/01 -0400, Dan Honemann wrote:

>Okay, I think I've hit on the image quality I'm looking for, but I don't
>have the words to express it--so maybe someone here can help.

<snip>

>In any event, I'm struggling to find an affordable way to get prints that
>look like _that_, the way my slides do under a loupe and when projected.


This quality you're looking for comes from perfect practice 
in every step of the image-taking and image-making process. 

It involves far more than "the perfect film scanner."

Start with a large negative.  Use the slowest, finest-
grained films.  Use a tripod.  Use the finest lenses.
Use mirror lock-up (if the camera is an SLR.)  If you're
after sharpness, use the right aperture (not f/64, but 
about 3 or 4 stops below wide-open.)

Etc. etc., Etc.

I could go on and describe some of the things you ought 
to do in Photoshop, (after acquiring "the perfect scan") 
but that's even more off-topic.  Oh, and we haven't 
discussed printers, papers and inks yet, oh my <g>.

Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms 
of enlargement) with 35 mm film.  Sure, you can blow it 
up to almost any size you want, but the same image on 
a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print.

Which is why I'm now screwing around with 645 cameras, 
and the associated bulk and $$$ involved in all that.


rafe b.