Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 4/30/06 9:32:58 PM, tyler@... writes:


> 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.
> 

Which brings us back to my concept of differing degrees of grain scanning. 
When resolution first starts showing variation caused by grain, it does not yet 
resemble grain, so when scanners were of that resolution the concept of 
"digital grain" in scans arose. Once grain could be articuated more realistically by 
affordable scanners, users got quite enthused about scanning to the grain. 
But you can take it even further with higher rez scanners. Such images are all 
grain, and the images can't effectively be sharpened, any sharpening just 
accents the grain. Touchup is also difficult, as it must deal with maintaining 
grain pattern. At some point the idea of shooting digitally, doing all of the proc
essing and sharpening, and then adding synthetic grain to the image, to cover 
Tyler's digital fuzziness issue, starts to seem easier. Higher image 
resolution, be it in film or digital, sounds like a better idea to me!

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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