Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/08

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

Subject: [Leica] RE: The endless nonsense about film vs. digital
From: Jim Brick <>
Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2002 12:43:57 -0800
References: <>

My 20x24 & 30x40 optical prints are sharper (they're dead sharp!) than the 
same film, scanned on a Tango drum scanner (300mb files), and printed on a 
LightJet printer. The optical prints look "alive". The LightJet prints look 
very good, but there is a telling difference. Of course (and not to start 
another argument) the LightJet prints are on Fuji Crystal Archive (RA4 
process) paper and the optical prints are Cibachrome Classic.

JMHPE (Just My Humble Personal Experience),



At 02:23 PM 12/8/2002 -0500, Austin Franklin wrote:

> From my experience, this isn't even right.  I get sharper, more detailed,
>prints from scanning film and printing on my inkjet printer with Piezo inks,
>than I got from chemical prints...and yes, I used very high end glass
>(Schneider) and printed from Hasselblad negatives.  At least this is true
>for me for B&W.  I don't really do any color.

- --
To unsubscribe, see

In reply to: Message from "Phong" <> (RE: [Leica] OT: The endless nonsense about film vs. digital (long rant))