Thanks Paul, for the clarification. To personalize my experience, I would substitute the word "absolute" sharpness for your term "apparent" sharpness.
Jack --- Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I may have been the one who said that an optical > print is "probably > better than a digital," but you're taking my words > out of context. What > I actually said is that for an extremely large print > -- say 30 x 40 > inches -- from 35mm film, an optical print could be > superior to digital > because you're dealing only with film grain. You > don't get into a > situation where the grain is fighting the > pixelation. However, in my > experience, the best digital prints are generally > superior to the best > optical prints in apparent sharpness. > Paul > On Apr 25, 2005, at 6:15 PM, Jack Davis wrote: > > > Group, > > Someone recently offered a passing comment that an > > optical print is "probably better than a digital". > > Not wanting to take on the total meaning of > "better", > > let me comment only about sharpness. I've have a > > rather large inventory of optical prints that from > > time to time have required duplication. As a > result, > > I've needed a number of 35mm and 6x6cm images > scanned > > (50mp - 100mp)from which to make the prints. IMO, > In > > all cases, the digital/inkjet/lightjet prints > appear > > sharper than their optical equivalents. > > All work has been done by quality full service > labs. > > I admit to a "sharpness" fixation. > > What has been your experience? > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________ > > Do You Yahoo!? > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > > http://mail.yahoo.com > > > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
