Point taken but I think the machinery is more the fault than the paper. Thanks
for this very clear illustration. Having seen the
automated printers running with test paper, I can tell ya that there are an
enormous amount of noise, impacts, and vibration all
during exposure.
For example, some printers use air solenoids to punch a hole through the paper
so the downstream cutter can "look" for it. They are
loud so there must be a structure-borne, seismic component too. Then there are
the paper driving wind-on rollers that use
high-torque motors to jolt the paper into motion and an electronic "brake" to
slam the paper to a stop.
I can tell ya, it's a loooong way from W. Eugene Smith using a footswitch, a
stopwatch, and a bottle of scotch at 3am. :)
Lama
Moose amply proved his point:
> I just don't think it is possible to really evaluate a lens based on 4x6
> prints.
>
> I did an experiment some time ago and posted the results, but that ISP
> is history, so here they are again
> <http://www.geocities.com/dreammoose/>. I simply took the same image and
> compared a 600dpi scan of the 4x6 print to a 2700dpi scan of the
> negative.
< 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 >
|