Digital BW, The Print

Yeah, well... even without doing the test I just do the cleanup as 
good as possible :)

In other fields I have heard the phrase, "computers haven't made 
things easier, they've just raised the bar for what is expected."  A 
friend of mine has 3 Ansel Adams prints and they are all spotted 
quite poorly...

mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, hogarth 
<hogarth@s...> wrote:
> Yep.
> 
> I've done an experiment to see just how much cleanup to do. Print a
> section from an image as big as you ever think you'll make a print. 
For
> me, that was about a 12inch square from what would have been a 40x50
> inch print (from a 4x5 original). Then do your best to clean it up 
in
> Photoshop and print the section again. Put the prints side by side 
under
> the same lights and see how much difference it makes to you. 
> 
> This may help you decide how much work to do. In my case, it made me
> think I should just suck it up and clean up as best I could. You 
don't
> have to live with the little imperfections anymore - especially in 
clear
> tones like open sky. Barely visible, is still visible.
> 
> The reason to do the test is, YMMV.
> 
> 
> On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 12:43, Mark Hahn wrote:
> 
> > after I went to scanning I was horrified at all the dust and 
> > scratches that I had to deal with so out of curiosity I took out 
a 
> > bunch of old traditionally printed photos that I thought I was 
happy 
> > with and looked at them under a loupe... guess what?  They had 
all 
> > the same dust and scratches that I saw in my scans... but with 
those 
> > scans I had only worried about what showed up on the print.  The 
> > problem with PSing is that it is an instant loupe and you start 
> > wanting everything perfect at that level instead of on the print.
> > 
> > mark
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]