I'm going to add only two more points to this discussion.
1. My monitor is set to a resolution of 1024x768. Measuring the width of the
1/225th portion of the photo I posted as seen on screen at that setting, then
doing a little math, shows that if a print were made with the whole enlarged to
the same degree as that 494x317 pixel piece, it would be more than 8 feet wide.
How well a digital shot would enlarge to an equal size is something I can't
speculate upon. I'm sure someone will tell of seeing even larger digital
blow-ups that are tack-sharp, grainless and pixelless, with vibrant color and a
3-D appearance that makes them see almost alive. I've got enough NaCl to take
a grain or two PRN, so go right ahead.
2. Like Moose said, ICE has a definite effect on sharpness. Despite my
semi-facetious* post about it yesterday, I now use it only on problem slides,
of which, fortunately, I don't have too many. As for the iris shot Moose
mentioned, which was on a CD of high-res scans I sent to a few folks, that's a
Kodachrome slide. And I'm 99 percent certain now that I scanned it using ICE,
which, as we know, doesn't work with Kodachrome. Whatever effect it had I'm
sure wasn't beneficial. In fact, every scan on that CD was made using ICE, so
imagine them all being a little sharper. It's the kind of dumb thing a dummy
will do when playing with a new toy he's still, two months later, figuring out
how to use. :-)
Walt
*Facetious: the only word in the English language with all the vowels in
alphabetical order.
--
"Anything more than 500 yards from
the car just isn't photogenic." --
Edward Weston
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|