Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/11/23

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] 8MP vs. scan [was: Re: Nikon's profits tripled
From: jonathan at openhealth.org (Jonathan Borden)
Date: Tue Nov 23 06:12:56 2004
References: <BDC6AA28.ACD2%mark@rabinergroup.com> <20041122042936.10094.qmail@balhpl01.ncable.net.au> <6.1.0.6.2.20041121212150.0593e1a8@192.168.100.42> <3D4C3512-3D2F-11D9-816F-000A9578C446@ncable.net.au>

Alastair Firkin wrote:

> This is the sort of comment I want to hear. It would seem that you can 
> do adequate work with scanning negatives
>

There is literally an entire industry built around scanning negatives 
-- and yes the quality is quite high. Nowadays filmmakers shoot film, 
and then digitize to edit, and then sometimes physically splice the 
resultant film based on the digital edits. Film still has a higher 
density range (bit depth) than consumer digital sensors. The color 
gamut of Ektachrome is unmatched by any digital camera I am aware of.

I personally use a combined film/digital workflow. I am investigating 
the possibility of chucking the enlarger altogether by printing 8x10 
negatives on my Epson and then contact printing them to Azo or Pt/Pd 
(for example).

I can't get an inkjet black to be anything near the density of an Azo 
black. On the other hand, printing B/W with carbon based inkjet looks 
really fantastic when the photo doesn't have many deep blacks. These 
inks are probably way more archival than silver processes.

Jonathan




In reply to: Message from mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from firkin at balhpl01.ncable.net.au (firkin) ([Leica] Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from richard-lists at imagecraft.com (Richard) ([Leica] 8MP vs. scan [was: Re: Nikon's profits tripled)
Message from firkin at ncable.net.au (Alastair Firkin) ([Leica] 8MP vs. scan [was: Re: Nikon's profits tripled)