Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/12/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]What a shock! :-) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us [mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us] On Behalf Of Jim Brick Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2002 3:44 PM To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us; leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: [Leica] RE: The endless nonsense about film vs. digital 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), :-) Jim 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. > >Austin - -- 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