Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Rich Lahrson sez: I guess an image like this would become total mush when scanned, > and attempting to read the writing. > Gee Rich, Not trying to be contentious, but I don't know how you could "guess" the results of an experiment like that. Actually scanning it, or taking it to a Fuji Frontier printer might give an inexpensive answer to the question. SonC - ----- Original Message ----- From: "tripspud" <tripspud@transbay.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:32 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] Fuji Frontier 4R prints lose detail that is in the negatives? > Hi Martin, > > I'll comment here, since all my prints in the darkroom so far have > been 4x6 prints from 35mm black and white negatives in the wet > darkroom. > > One image is of an historic building and in front is a plaque explaining > about the building. The writing on the plaque is unreadable in the 4x > enlargement without a magnifying glass. With a 4x or 7x lupe, it's > possible to just barely read the plaque, so the limits of practical > resolution has been reached (Agfapan 100, 35mm lens handheld > in bright light, careful focus on the sign at f/8. > > I guess an image like this would become total mush when scanned, > and attempting to read the writing. > > > Cheers, > > Rich Lahrson > Berkeley, California > tripspud@transbay.net > > Martin Krieger wrote: > > > I would expect that a 4x print in a reasonable enlarger would retain all the > > detail visible in the negative with a 10x magnifier and make that detail > > easier to see. Yet when I examine 4x prints made in a Fuji Frontier digital > > system, I seem to be losing detail. I gather that the Frontier digitizes the > > negative and then prints with a laser onto ordinary photographic paper. I > > imagine that the scan is insufficiently fine to pick up all the detail in > > the negative, just enough so that when the print is examined with the bare > > eye it appears as sharp as one might hope. (Perhaps also, electronic > > manipulation, say sharpening, loses some detail?) Hence the 4R print, > > examined with a loupe, is inadequate. > > > > If I understand all of this correctly, optical enlargement with a decent > > enlarger, is "inefficient." Lots more detail is retained in the print than > > can be seen with the naked eye. Digital scanning and enlargement can be more > > "efficient," putting down just enough detail so that the image feels sharp > > and complete with the naked eye. This is not necessary, in that a digital > > system could have all the detail available in the negative, and print it out > > (at say a real 1000dpi). > > > > Am I right in my understanding? > > > > MK > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html