Is there a commercial color lab left in the US that actually uses
optical enlargers? I think not. I think everything you get these days
is a scanned image placed on wet print paper via laser or, for really
big prints, printed on ink jet printer just like most of us do.
You may be correct that the film may contain more/better information
than what we normally see on the print but I think it's mighty hard to
get at it any other way these days.
Chuck Norcutt
John A. Lind wrote:
> At 05:41 AM 5/9/2005, Moose wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
>>This time, I both compared downsampled film to 300D and upsampled 300D to
>>full size film scan.
>
>
> Moose,
> Scanning the film makes any comparison of the digital file that results
> with a pure digital photograph seriously flawed. It's no longer what the
> film recorded. It's a digital copy of it entirely at the mercy of the
> scanning method used. It cannot be used to characterize what film versus
> digital is capable of producing.
>
> This should be (as a proper characterization of the evaluation):
> "My personal Film _Digital_Scanning_ vs. Digital Tests - II"
>
> -- John Lind
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|