Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2012/07/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]On Jul 14, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Robert Meier wrote: > You make a good point about negatives being better than the scans made > from them, and I would add, the prints made from negatives are better than > the scans as well. This makes it impossible to compare things over the > internet, since scans are all that we can show on the internet. You have > to have the actual darkroom prints from negatives in your hands to see how > good they can be. I don't think we can simply lump all "scans" into one category of quality. When the digital work flow began to take over commercial photography and graphic design All my sheet film, roll film and 35 mm commercial work was drummed scanned. I invested huge amounts of time and money into various scanners over a period of nearly 10 years. I was never able to achieve the quality of the drum scans. Nor did I wish to become a "drum scanner" service bureau. So the writing was clearly on the wall: - shoot digital files - for commercial purposes. - shoot digital files - for digital printing - shoot film for analog printing (or pay large amounts of money for drum scans) YMMV Regards, George Lottermoser george at imagist.com http://www.imagist.com http://www.imagist.com/blog http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist