Imaging

Stephen R. Harrison (stephenr@silcom.com)
Fri, 20 Sep 1996 22:55:07 -0700

On 9/20/96 ,David Fokos thoughtfully and extensively commented on the
overall benefits and assets of digital imaging. In Feb of this year, I
went to India with my 7x17 inch Canham Camera to photograph. I literally
weighed in at 400 pounds including 10 filmholders and 50 pounds of HP 5+.
I took this cumbersome camera because I did not want to sacrifice the loss
of quality that would result in taking a smaller camera and making an
enlarged internegative. So if I interpret this technical discussion
correctly, the implication is that I could do the same with a much more
manageable 4x5 or even a 2 1/4 which would be a living dream , use a lot
more film, end up with nice large 16x20 inch platinums and suffer no loss
of quality at all. The excess baggage costs ( $300.00), taxi costs , large
equipment cases, and advil for backspasm would easily pay for the cost
of the scans. Moreover, 4x5 film and certainly 2 1/4 film unlike 7x17
inch film can circumvent x-rays and be hand inspected. It sounds too good
to be true.It feels like we are defying the laws of gravity and cheating
nature. Is it true ?? If so that is a definite plus for digital imaging.
Photography in third world countries is extremely difficult and this
presents a method for doing it with much less grief and bachache. But are
my assumptions reasonable? Are we talking about a range of $30.00 or
$50.00 for a final negative paid to the service bureau. Is it reasonable to
go from say a 4x5 to a 16x20 in terms of cost?

One other question: What limits do these scanners have in terms of dpi ? .
Does it cost more to scan it at 2400 dpi than at 1333 dpi. Is 2400 dpi a
big number in reference to these scanners? What is a reasonable degree of
enlargement with todays technology . I assume that the greater the
enlargement, the greater the cost. Is this true?

Thanks again for your extensive response.

Stephen Harrison