On 25 Sep 2005 at 21:41, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > I respectfully disagree because a SCAN > is essentially the same a RAW file > out of a DSLR. You record the scan > for maximum fidelity to the neg and archive > the scans. If later you want to do some > post processing to somehow remove artifacts > (like grain for example) you can but you > wouldn't want a scan that did already did that because > its not an accurate representation of > the neg and any processing you do DURING > the scan that loses the grain resolution > is throwing away that image & grain detail forever > and will not be recoverable. Do you agree > this is a clear distinction and a valid > one? --- because I DO.
Theoretically yes, practically no. Unless like others have said you can afford to buy a 12000 dpi drum scanner or alternately afford to pay ~US$50 per scan for the privilege. And then it wouldn't be usable unless all colour/level/gamma adjustment could be perfected at the point of capture. Back to the practicality of the issue: suppose some D3200 were shot at and processed to yield 1600ISO or higher then scanned at sufficient resolution to reveal individual grains (2000dpi+). The resultant image will look and behave like a lithograph. IOW no grey-scale adjustment/correction can be accomplished on such an image until the individually rendered grains are integrated to form an apparent grey-scale image. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
