Re: filmscanners: film vs. digital cameras -wedding/commercial photography

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Great commentary Ian.  I think sometimes we take the numbers too
seriously and don't look at results.  Of course, the loupe-heads will be
unhappy with a 100 dpi image, but, if it is a large format print, only
bad manners says you should be scrutinizing it at 8", anyway.

Of course, I do understand it that the only subject matter you guys 
photograph is sheep, so they all look rather fuzzy most of the time 
anyway, right? ;-)

Art

Ian Boag wrote:
> 
> Always gives you guys something to laugh about when a ignoramus dives in. I
> have an engineering PhD as well but it's in Chem Eng from the 70's which I
> guess makes my opinion worth as much that of the average taxi driver.
> 
> I had an Agfa 1680 for a while. 1.3 MP CCD and some fancy interpolation
> that supposedly took it to equiv 1.9 MP. Dunno if I believed that. The
> point was it did A4 prints that I considered fairly acceptable, although my
> scanned neg stuff was a bit better. I have Kodak FD300 and HP S20 film
> scanners. I know there are scanners that do APS and 35 but that's not the
> way it happened for me. Both are 2400 dpi.
> 
> Have just upgraded to a Casio 3000 (3.3 MP). Also had the misfortune to be
> followed home by a used Epson Stylus 3000 A2 printer. Printed some A2 stuff
> off the digicam and it just blew me away. Orright orright it's not the same
> as one would get off an MF neg and Sprintscan 4000 (I assume). Was pretty
> damn good though - some pixelation visible when viewed from 10 cm (who
> views this size print at from 10 cm anyway).
> 
> I know the dot arithmetic doesn't work. The digi pic is about the equiv of
> a 1200 dpi 35mm neg scan. Blowing that out to A2 is a res on the paper of
> about 100-odd dpi. Obviously totally unsatisfactory. I just have to tell my
> eyes that .... :)
> 
> Have now been amusing self by copying slides on a light box using 5
> diopters of closeup lens on the front of the zoom in macro mode. Purists
> should feel free to faint. More pretty damn good results.
> 
> I would not be bothered in the least if someone sold me a pic of this
> quality suitably printed on a matt paper perhaps under glass and framed up
> nice.
> 
>         Cheers Ian