> I am also not aware of the possibility of Ilfochrome-quality > enlargements from digital images (even if that were possible, the > files would be enormous, in terms of today's magnetic/optical storage > technology). > > My 2c... > Guy Here's a few more cents worth. I've been using Nikon's LS2000 scanner for about a month, and an Epson Photo EX inkjet printer for a week now. I went back to a chrome (velvia) taken a couple years ago -I'd printed it cibachrome and also c print via med format interneg. The cibachrome was nice, excellent color good contrast, and clear detail. The c print's color was a bit muddy, and had lost some definition, relative to the original slide and the cibachrome print. (I guess it needed more color work at the enlarger than I was willing to put in, at the time.) A week ago, I scanned in the slide in question. I made a few adjustments (histogram/curves adjustments in photoshop) and this image just popped off the screen. I sent it down to the Epson at max resolution onto glossy photo paper. The result was impressive -to my eye, it looks much better than the cibachrome. Partly, I believe this results from the adjustments I'd made in photoshop (which aren't quite available at the lab). We have better control over color balance, contrast, and picture elements once the image is digital. I did a comparison study. I put the cibachrome and the epson print in front of friends who'd never seen the image before. I told them one came from an enlarger and one from an inkjet printer, and asked them to pick out the original cibachrome print. No exceptions, they always picked out the Epson print as being the original cibachrome. Funny, eh? I don't yet fully understand why this is. I think it really was the color adjustments I could only make to the digital image. Under an 8x loupe, the Epson's inkjet ink blobs are easy to see. The cibachrome would probably take a 30x microscope to see the paper's emulsion. So, the Epson loses in terms of potential image resolution. But that doesn't seem to make much difference. To the naked eye, looking very closely, I can see that there's a slightly grainy texture to the Epson print, but I can't quite see what's causing it. My next test is to run the same file out on a high-end printer, a die-sub or something similar, as a reference print. File size does get large, but relative to today's storage costs, it's not a big problem. At least not until you want to store/archive hundreds or thousands of images at maximum resolution, then you're looking at making an investment. At 2700dpi and 48bit color, you end up with files as large as 58MB. If you scale them up for large prints, and want to maintain high resolution, poof! There goes half a gig! You need a speedy computer with at least 128MB ram, 256 best. The trade-off (dollars for digital) has been worth it. best regards, kevin prichard [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: 23-Jun-1998 18:50:32 > From: > Subject: Re: nikon-digest V3 #377 > > > > Why should I continue to shoot slides instead of negative film now > > that it is so easy to scan a negative and get a positive proof print > > from my printer? > > Slide film still delivers better resolution and color than negatives (so > your scan and print will look better). If anything the question should > be: why shoot film when digital SLRs can produce high-quality, > high-resolution images. The answer to that one is that high-end digital > cameras are still way more expensive than film cameras. I am also not > aware of the possibility of Ilfochrome-quality enlargements from digital > images (even if that were possible, the files would be enormous, in > terms of today's magnetic/optical storage technology). > > My 2c... > Guy
