Digital BW, The Print

BOGUS ARGUMENT ALERT!


Simon Lamb wrote:

>  I absolutely guarantee that if I do not tell anyone which
>is which, 99% of the general viewing public wouldn�t have the faintest idea,
>nor would they care.  
>
Hmmm.. 99% wouldn't know what inks or paper you used if you didn't tell 
them either.. In that case, by your argument, we should be using the 
1270 OEM inks and printing on photocopy paper, as long as the public 
likes and appreciates the image..

Sorry, that's just wrongheaded.

>This retentive nature about ultimate sharpness is really just too much.  Who
>cares, certainly not anyone except those who scan an image at 4000ppi, blow
>it up to 100% and then start looking at edge definition, colour fringing and
>Rultimate sharpness�  For pete�s sake, it won�t even show on a 22X22, let
>alone a 12X12 ort 10X8!
>  
>
<<<< --- not surprised that would be your position since you are using a 
flatbed..

I assume you do all your cropping in camera too? Because if you are 
going to crop an image, having a 4000 dpi scan makes a BIG difference.

>The only exception I would make to this is large prints and fine art prints
>for sale or exhibition, where someone may well look at the fine detail.  As
>I do neither I am happy with the 3200, as most people would be if they work
>at it and get the most from it.
>  
>
Or if you intend to crop...



Keith

"Just some guy," and caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON printer 
User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
Publications), at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSONx7x_Printers/

"For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks together 
guys"




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

Nothing at all bogus about my argument, but your comments illustrate my
point exactly.

Why should I tell anyone what paper and inks I used.  If I am showing an
image, who cares if it was printed using piezo inks on an Epson 3000 or the
watered down oil from my car and drawn with a needle and lots of patience.
Damn right, as long as the image is appreciated and conveys the message I
intended, who cares.

 <<<< --- not surprised that would be your position since you are using a
> flatbed..>>>>

..not surprised that your position would differ if you spent thousands on
your scanner.  I guess it must be painful to think that others can match
visible (normal viewing) quality up to a certain size of print for a few
thousand less.  My position is based upon currently using a flatbed and a
Flextight Photo, and doing some detailed comparisons of my own.

I try not to crop too much after the image is taken but, yes, when necessary
I do crop.  I can easily get a 360dpi A3+ print from a cropped 6X6 scanned
at 3200.  If I had to crop a 6X6 any  more than that to get a usable image
then I just didn't get it right to start with.  Given that I rarely go above
A3+ I need no more.

You seem to have got hung up on the fact that I mentioned 4000ppi.  My
comment applies to anyone scanning at any resolution.

I guess you will continue to scrutinise you scans in minute detail.  Enjoy,

Simon

On 18/3/03 12:19 am, "Editor P.O.V. Image Service" <editor@...>
wrote:

> 
> BOGUS ARGUMENT ALERT!
> 
> 
> Simon Lamb wrote:
> 
>>  I absolutely guarantee that if I do not tell anyone which
>> is which, 99% of the general viewing public wouldn¹t have the faintest idea,
>> nor would they care.
>> 
> Hmmm.. 99% wouldn't know what inks or paper you used if you didn't tell
> them either.. In that case, by your argument, we should be using the
> 1270 OEM inks and printing on photocopy paper, as long as the public
> likes and appreciates the image..
> 
> Sorry, that's just wrongheaded.
> 
>> This retentive nature about ultimate sharpness is really just too much.  Who
>> cares, certainly not anyone except those who scan an image at 4000ppi, blow
>> it up to 100% and then start looking at edge definition, colour fringing and
>> Rultimate sharpness¹  For pete¹s sake, it won¹t even show on a 22X22, let
>> alone a 12X12 ort 10X8!
>>  
>> 
> <<<< --- not surprised that would be your position since you are using a
> flatbed..
> 
> I assume you do all your cropping in camera too? Because if you are
> going to crop an image, having a 4000 dpi scan makes a BIG difference.
> 
>> The only exception I would make to this is large prints and fine art prints
>> for sale or exhibition, where someone may well look at the fine detail.  As
>> I do neither I am happy with the 3200, as most people would be if they work
>> at it and get the most from it.
>>  
>> 
> Or if you intend to crop...
> 
> 
> 
> Keith

After all it is the image that counts. It is not the steps that got you 
there. Weston probably didn't care a whole lot about how he got there. 
He got there the best he could. And he got there better than 99.9% of 
the photographers that have ever lived or will ever live did or will.

Truman

Simon Lamb wrote:

>Nothing at all bogus about my argument, but your comments illustrate my
>point exactly.
>
>Why should I tell anyone what paper and inks I used.  If I am showing an
>image, who cares if it was printed using piezo inks on an Epson 3000 or the
>watered down oil from my car and drawn with a needle and lots of patience.
>Damn right, as long as the image is appreciated and conveys the message I
>intended, who cares.
>  
>