Re: filmscanners: 2700ppi a limiting factor in sharpness?

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

I love viewing a technically excellent print.  Tight grain, sharp focus, 
good color balance or range of grays, proper contrast, etc.

But I've often been distracted by the image next to it, which has 
something to say to me, but has a dozen technical defects.

If it comes to choosing between the two, I'll take the later.

There is something about the digital world that tends to make us way too 
"binary" in our thinking.

Technical is great, but let's not forget what image making is really about.

I'd rather have a scratchy LP of a Beatles album than a pristine CD of 
INsync, so call me crazy.

Art


Dave King wrote:

> Roger wrote:
> 
> 
>>The best 35 mm lens will have trouble making a really good 11x14.
>>The print size limit for 35 mm lenses is therefore somewhere
>> in that range, i.e., at least 8x10 but not much over 11x14.
>>
> 
> Oh I don't know, Cartier Bresson's large format prints from 40 year
> old negs look pretty good to me.  But Bresson was more on intuition
> than engineering, and I don't think he made his photos or prints for
> photo geeks who look at a print from 2 inches away.
> 
> I love making 24x36" prints on an Epson 7000 from 800 speed color negs
> shot with a $90 point and shoot.  Why?  Because they look great.
> 
> I also own and shoot regularily with the best glass available for
> 35mm, 6x7, and 4x5, and I'm here to tell you resolution isn't what
> photography is about unless you're a geek!
> 
> Ducking for cover,
> 
> Dave:)
> 
> .
> 
>