Giles wrote:
>
How does the image quality of a digitally scanned and printed 35mm
compare with a print from a LF negative?
I had to run down to QualityChrome in Charlotte, NC last week after
hearing about it on this list. I was amazed at the apparently grainless
4 foot by 8 foot print they had there that had come from a scanned
8"X10" print. It was not a print of recent vintage either, but of a
Nascar race at (I think) Datona Beach in the late 50s.
Is it possible that with current technology the 35mm format can perform
as relatively as well as the LF?
I am very new to computer manipulation of photos, but I already prefer
it to the hours I used to spend in the darkroom.
Gregg Iverson
>
> With 35mm you have options and flexibility but you do not have the ultimate
> image quality of LF either.
>
> Giles
>
> John A. Lind wrote:
>
> > For you, the answer may be different.
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|