Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 6/16/2003 7:06:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com writes:

> I have found from actual experience that I can
> get a better 8x10 print from a 645 neg scanned on my 1600dpi flatbed
> than I can from a 35mm neg scanned on a friend's 4000dpi Nikon film
> scanner.  At 4x5 or 5x7 it's a toss up, but by 8x10 the difference
> becomes apparent.  I can't explain this in numbers, but the difference
> is clear.  I can only assume there is more information on the larger
> neg and that scanning the smaller neg at a higher resolution doesn't
> make up the difference (it probably just gets more of what _is_
> there).
> 

I agree with this. So what's differeent between this and traditional optical 
printing? The same rules apply. This is why more square inches of film makes 
up for all the other aspects of film photography (MTF, lenses, coverage, etc.). 
You don't use 35mm for lanscapes or 8x10 for snapshots.

Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]