images are perfectly adequate. But I've worked with medium format, large format (4x5),
and 35mm wet prints up to 11x14. My scanner creates 9mp scans and I know it doesn't
wring out all of the detail in a 35mm negative. I've scanned old negatives and printed
equivalent sized images and compared the results using a loupe. I've also looked at
the same areas directly on my monitor and compared them to the 35mm enlargements. I originally
thought the lack of detail was caused by my cheep scanner but I've seen the same results
from the 9-14 megapixel digital cameras, it's most noticeable to me at least in portraits,
around the eyes. What I see is a noticeable lack of detail. Digital has reached the
point where it is good enough for most amateur and many commercial purposes. If you think
it has surpassed film in all, or for that matter in any area for actually recording information,
(at least in applications where hundreds of thousands of dollars isn't being spent such as
astrophysics), you're wearing blinders. Which is all I pointed out.
At 07:45 AM 1/28/2003 -0600, you wrote:
> I think that says it all you are comparing your scanner to the D1 not film > to digital.I talked to Michael Reichmann about making some chemical enlargements to compare to the 1Ds inkjet prints, and he isn't interested. He says he convinced himself years ago that scanned film is better than negatives for making big prints, and he's not interested in revisiting that debate. He also points out that if he spent all his time addressing the arguments being made against him, he wouldn't have time for anything else. I agree with him. He makes it clear in his articles how he sets up his tests, and then he makes his personal conclusions. Anybody who is interested can read what he says. If people don't think it's a good test or wish he had tested something else, well, that's their problem--they should do their own tests. The thing I don't understand is why, or how, people can get so exercised over this. I mean, 6x7 hasn't changed, has it? It looked good before, it looks good now, and nothing about the state of digital development can or will make it look any worse, right? I don't see how it makes a difference to film shooters one way or the other. If you like film, shoot film. I do. --Mike
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
