Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/10
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Tina Manley wrote: > > At 01:07 PM 10/10/99 +0000, you wrote: > > >Can anybody advise me on this? What are the quality considerations between > >scanning prints and negs/trans? I was surprised when I saw the article > >arguing in favour of using 7x5 inch print scans for A3 inkjet prints > >because I had assumed that the dynamic range from a print scan would be > >significantly inferior to a film scan. > > > >Simon, > >London. > > Simon - > > I was surprised to read this, too. I've always felt that the fewer > generations you go through to the final product, the better the result will > be. Since the film is the first generation, it should give better > results. I have absolutely no complaints about my LS-2000 and do not see > how a flat scanner could possibly be better. He does say it is simpler > because he is doing all of the color and contrast adjusting before he makes > the print. I find that much easier to do with the scanning software and > Photoshop. I just finished a brochure for a company with 15 close-up > photographs of people with very different skin tones (all photographed with > the R6.2). They all come out exactly on target. I couldn't be happier! > > Tina I did a comparison a couple of weeks ago against a slide from a scanned neg which I had Photoshoped into balance (and Outputted) and a slide from the same image in which I had done it my more usual way: Print the slide in my darkroom and then copy it with a macro lens onto slide film. The side by side of the same image comparison on the light table easily showed the scanned output (2000 pixel across) was much sharper that the image which passed through both my enlarger and macro lenses. It made my traditional copy slide which I Had thought was alright look like a picture of a picture. Anyone who had tried much copy work will know what I mean by that. Mark Rabiner