>
> I don't know how they print film photos off nowadays, but I
> had assumed it was still a process of development, rather
> than printing. This being the case, if you "develop" an image
> from a negative to a 24" x 18" print, then what you should
> get is effectively an infinity-dpi enlarged reproduction of
> the negative image.
>
> If developers now "print" rather than "develop", then I take
> your point 100%, and any comparison between a printed film
> image and a digital one is meaningless.
>
> Assuming commercial printers can only "print" digital images
> at 200 dpi then they will lose quality because of it. That's
> bad luck for digital camera users, I suppose, but it's the
> end product that needs to be compared...
>
My local mini lab can do both (conventional "optical" printing and scan
& print to photo paper, I think it's a Noritsu machine). They now do
all their work using the scan/print way except for special requests for
"optical". They have shown me 8"x12" prints from the same negs done
both ways and while there is a difference between the prints I couldn't
say one type was better than the other. For prints up to 8"x12" they
scan at 2000ppi (=6Mpixels for a 35mm frame).
Anyway, getting back to the point, if you compare prints from your local
mini lab with prints from a digital camera the film will most likely
come off worse due to the fact that it has gone through a digitising
process already.
...Wayne
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|