Digital BW, The Print

Brian Ellis wrote:
> "As an aside, it continues to amaze me that people who spend the time, 
> effort
> and $$ to do large format photography then content themselves with flatbed
> scans."
> 
> I've been photographing and exhibiting prints from 4x5 and 8x10 negatives 
> for years using a flatbed scanner. In my experience, and that of many others 
> (see numerous posts on this subject at www.largeformatphotography.info), as 
> long as the print size doesn't exceed roughly 16x20 there's almost never any 
> noticeable difference between those scans and prints made from drum scans 
> (which I use for larger prints) unless the prints are examined with a loupe.

The original request didn't mention wide format printing 
either as far as I know.

 >>My friend has inherited from several sources a vast 
collection of old maritime negs dating
from the late 1800's thru about 1970. All together i think 
there are three sources, totalling
something close to 4000 negs!<<

This suggests a wider variety of sizes than 4x5. A variety 
of emulsions and probably lower resolution emulsions than we 
are used to today. Possibly nitrocellulose and glass image 
carriers.

Looks like it needs a flexible solution which isn't one you 
will find in a drum scanner


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |