Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 6:01 PM Subject: RE: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w > > I compose in the camera, that's why I paid for the viewfinder ;) > > I second that. It is rare that

RE: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

TED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Sleep > Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:15 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: > 4000dpi (w > > > > Anybody want to argue that a 4000dpi scan

RE: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

> I compose in the camera, that's why I paid for the viewfinder ;) I second that. It is rare that I don't print a negative full frame... Austin The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign,

RE: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

> Now, wouldn't it be nice if the scanners had optics that allowed variable > magnification? The LeafScan 45 has 1:2, 1:1 and 2:1 The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk To resign,

Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

As I have understood there have been replies from mid-format as well as 24x36 mm users judging about the necessity for 4000 ppi scanning resolutions for handheld shots. As far as I can see the film format makes a difference: given the same shutter speed (let's say 1/30") for two shots on differen

Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE:4000dpi (w

>Actually that's one of very few things I am religiously opposed to, in my >own work. I compose in the camera, that's why I paid for the viewfinder ;) If you own a Bronica SQ-Ai, as I did until very recently, then you can see only 94% of what's captured on film using the waist-level finder and i

Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

> Anybody want to argue that a 4000dpi scan won't allow for more severe > cropping to produce the same size print as compared to a under 3000dpi > scan? Actually that's one of very few things I am religiously opposed to, in my own work. I compose in the camera, that's why I paid for the viewfin

RE: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

imize the use of the image sensor! (I know, such a feature would be costly. It might be useful, too!!) > -Original Message- > From: Ron Carlson [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 2:17 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Image sharpness--

RE: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

> I'm a "sharpness junkie" Mee too. > I have noticed that once I magnify the scanned image > in Photoshop to such an extent that I can easily see > the individual grain particles (especially on > Kodak Tri-X film), the image is less sharp than the > grains. I would suggest developing D-76 1:1.

RE: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

anx! Guy Clark > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 8:44 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: > 4000dpi (w > > > Anyway, I think t

Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

as needed. Regards Ron - Original Message - From: "Tony Sleep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2000 6:44 AM Subject: Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w > > Anyway, I think that the or

Re: Image sharpness-- Hand Held vs. Tripod Mounted (wasRE: 4000dpi (w

> Anyway, I think that the original point was that unless one takes > special > care to avoid vibrations and to focus carefully, a 4000 dpi scanner is > overkill, and a 2880 dpi unit is adequate or better. That is what I disagree with. It's simply not correct that 4000ppi is a waste of time unl