Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/11/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Whose confused??? Erwin didn't say that.... What did he say???
From: George Lottermoser <imagist@concentric.net>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 10:52:15 -0600

john@pinkheadedbug.com (Johnny Deadman)11/2/0010:24 AM

> on 2/11/00 9:12 am, Birkey, Duane at dbirkey@hcjb.org.ec wrote:
> 
> > In the one I originally snipped it and part of that is
below.....it appeared
> > Erwin was saying it to be at least 1920 x 2880....  But is he
then saying
> > that it is then needs to be multiplied by 4 or 7680x11520 to
get the 40 lp
> > resolution he was talking about???
> 
> Ha ha!! The confusion spreads... it's all part of a cunning
plan!!!

It seems to me that almost everyone is correct in their
mathematical, digital forrays as they relate to the point that
they wish to make. But they are not finding agreement in the "for
what end use" arena. 

I would find it most interesting, and useful, to have this
digital discussion (whether digital capture [meaning chip or
scanning cameras] or the scanning of film by desktop scanners,
Kodak PhotoCD services or high-end scanning services) move away
from mathematical/engineering/optical theory into actual working
methods for Digital Print Production of Photographs.

For those of us who actually do this work, PhotoShop does the
math automatically. Plug in the image size and resolution and
you'll get the pixel dimension and file size.

It feels much more useful for a working photographer to let me
know that s/he, "Šscanned a 35mm, NPS 160, Leica 35mm 1.4 wide
open negative, on an X scanner, at Y resolution and made a print,
at size A, using B printer, C inks (if an inkjet printer), on D
paper and here's how I'd describe the results." Rather than to
throw numbers around in theoretical space.

No offense intended. I truly believe that you're all correct
within your own contexts. But I crave practical, useable
information in these regards (the digital equivalent of xtol at
1:2, 13min @ 68š, delta 100, etc).

George