This is beyond my understanding. The purpose of scanning is to create a digital representation that ACCURATELY shows exactly whats on the negative and if grain is there then it not only should resolve the grain, it should resolve well beyond the grain to be sure. Of course file size and costs and other issues affect real world decisions but how can anyone argue that a scan shouldn't be able to resolve the grain if the grain is visible on the neg? Has the concept of high fidelity been lost here? jco
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2005 8:03 PM To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: anybody still shoot film? On 26 Sep 2005 at 0:48, mike wilson wrote: > Rob Studdert wrote: > > > On 25 Sep 2005 at 22:44, mike wilson wrote: > > > > > >>The grain is the photograph. Therefore, anything that improves the > >>grain image improves the picture quality. > > > > > > Only if you wish to purposefully reproduce the grain by digital > > means. > > Until you can, the digital output is not a faithful reproduction. But film grain is for most part considered an unwanted side effect of the photo- chemical technology, it certainly only adds to the value of an image in limited circumstances. I guess it's just difficult to appreciate the problems that scans that resolve grain can cause until it's your problem :-) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
