Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
...
> Scans often capture a whole lot of nothing. I recall scanning a series of 
> 35mm slides shot on safari in Africa for a friend. I ran them en-mass on my large 
> format flatbed at its max DPI to make comps of the files, so we could decide 
> which ones to rescan with a dedicated film scanner. It proved unnecessary, as 
> the flatbed was already scanning at a higher rez than any of the images 
> needed, and film scans would have just been bigger files without any more meaningful 
> image data. That is to say; the lion's mane would not have been sharper, 
> clearer, less posterized, or in any visual way more detailed or meaningful with a 
> much higher rez scan... there would just have been a much larger file to deal 
> with.

A lot of people don't understand this. I'm continously asked what dpi file is needed from a 
given film size for a given print size. Their assumption is that since it's commonly thought 
360 dpi at print size is desirable, then the scan must reflect that.
For a large print from 35mm, that requires a scan at higher dpi than many scanners can 
deliver. But more importantly, there is no image detail resolved to that degree or anything 
close to it, given lens and film capability. In fact, you are more likely to simply over-
resolve grain, to a distressing visual degree much greater than would have apeared at a 
same size print made through an enlarger.
There are so many case by case factors that apply, it's very difficult to make 
generalizations abou these discussions.
Tyler