Hi,
My usual photo lab recently discarded their last analogue processor /
enlarger and now they have two Agfa digital machines. They told me they got
too many complaints about the analogue prints; and on of the employees
remarked to me they would make more money from the digital machine ... ...
He did agree with me that the results from the analogue machine were
sometimes better.
A prime example of the artifacts from a digital machine can be seen in the
"real" enlargement of my bunny friend.
With the Zuiko 100/2 lens at 0.7 metres, even at f/8, the DOF is only about 1
cm. Less than half an inch, when enlarged to 8 x 12 or whatever.
The fur on the shoulders of the little lady is out of focus, and the digital
machine has reproduced each out-of-focus hair so that the end is all
feathered out; as though the hair has repeatedly bifurcated to end up looking
like a miniature feather duster. I feel sure that an analogue machine would
have given a different and more attractive result.
I have to ask the machine operator again, but I think he told me that the
scanner does 100 pixels per mm, but, regardless of magnification called for,
does 400 pixels per inch. That's about 15 per mm, much inside what the
human eye can discriminate.
I also think I will look around for a lab that still uses an analogue machine.
Brian
< 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 >
|