Digital BW, The Print

Yikes!

I don't think anyone's scaring anybody. I and others repeatedly said
throughout this discussion that there were many uses, and many appropriate
tools depending on the use. And certainly no one said that the scan made the
print! I'm glad you agree.

Bill

On 7/12/07, Seth Rossman < seth@...> wrote:
>
>   Oh, that's bollocks! While working for one the major historical
> societies and working along a top notch photo conservator, I have scanned
> some VERY old negatives and copied glass plates using a high quality process
> camera.
>
> In my professional opinion (and experience) one heck of a lot more issues
> go into the quality of posters and billboards than just the scan or the
> original file. Depending upon use, there is a point of diminishing returns.
>
> I am a STRONG proponent of "good enough" is NOT good enough. But, scaring
> that lady into possibly paying more--or do more--to get a high quality
> product is a bit over the edge, isn't it?
>
> I see this as a place we should get the required end before advising the
> means.
>
> Seth
>
> ====================
> Bill Morse wrote:
>
> As others have said, drum scanning is absolutely the best way to go; any
> of
> the flatbed and Imacon scanners will have significantly more noise, flare,
> and will be less sharp across the film plane than a good drum scan. On the
> other hand, as some have suggested, if the posters are to be of lower
> quality, viewed from medium distance (3 feet or more), you will get
> adequate
> results from any of the suggested scanners. It really depends on the
> end-use
> of the prints.
>
>  
>



-- 
Regards,

Bill Morse
Wm. Morse Editions

(617) 429-3298


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