Rafe,
My query was specific to the issue of print permanence. Indeed, there are many
valid reasons to "discuss film scanning at all." And in many applications, digital
probably wins hands down. As I implied in my first query, permanence is paramount
(all other things being equal) to me. And so far, I still don't know which are more
permanent ? digital prints or chemical prints.
Your statement that "There are hybrid solutions as well. Eg, output via
Lightjet or Lambda (onto archival print media, using wet chemistry) to get around
the print longevity issue" almost implies that you believe chemical prints are more
archival than digital. Is that true? I do not wish to "get around the print
longevity issue." I simply want to know which type of prints are more archival.
Can anyone enlighten us on this subject.
Admittedly, this is somewhat OT for this list. Can anyone direct me (and others
who are interested in this issue) to another more pertinent list?
Thanks to all,
JJ
Raphael Bustin wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, John C. Jernigan wrote:
>
> > I may be jumping into water over my head here, but I don't understand the
> > issue. What "differences" are we talking about here? Excellent output can be
> > obtained via either procedure. Personally, the only "difference" that seems
> > still unresolved (to me, at least) is that of print permanence. And as long as
> > great looking results can be obtained from either method, I would choose the
> > one with greatest longevity. Is there a consensus among experts?
> > (I have been to Wilhelm's site - http://www.wilhelm-research.com/index.htm -
> > but he seems to limit his studies to digital.)
> > Thank,
> > John J.
>
> If that's the logic, why discuss film scanning at all?
>
> Clearly there must be other considerations. How about
> improved control over output quality?
>
> There are hybrid solutions as well. Eg, output via
> Lightjet or Lambda (onto archival print media, using
> wet chemistry) to get around the print longevity issue.
>
> rafe b.
