I had a very pleasant surprise when I had my first mini-lab prints made digitally from a negative original - in London after a trip to Paris, and I think it was a Fuji Frontier machine. I was blown away by the sharpness and detail available from equipment I thought I knew well.
John Coyle Brisbane, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron Reynolds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 12:04 PM Subject: Re: Print sizes and megapixels > > On Jun 25, 2006, at 9:00 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > >> Heck, most digital prints lack a certain amount of detail when compared >> to wet prints of a similar size. > > I'm going to ask for more information here. Do you mean "most prints > sourced from a digital original when compared to prints sourced from a > negative or transparency"? > > Because my darkroom was a hell of a darkroom, but a Polaroid Sprintscan > 120 and an Epson Stylus Pro 7500 kicked it's ass all over town -- > sharper, more detailed prints. > > Digital as a print process can be much better than chemical darkroom. > The limiting factor is the original source. Of course, digital prints > run from great to crappy, just like chemical prints -- equipment plays > a big part in this. > > I don't know what people see in those Lambda printers, other than that > they are cheap to run. > > -Aaron > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
