Wayne Harridge wrote:
> 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.
If this is the case, then it's a huge pity, and clearly DSLRs are going to come
out ahead every time. Reducing the huge amount of data on a 35mm frame down to
6MP is absolute sacrilege.
Maybe I need to switch to transparencies and get myself a projector so I can
see my photos on a wall at 4' x 3'. It seems that this is the only way I could
only appreciate the detail that films offers!
Regards,
Simon Worby
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|