<< 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. >>
With digital imaging, you will be able to make images *look* better than the
original. They might not be better, but they can *look* better. One thing
that you might sacrifice is the details if you need to capture them. Again,
you can add details if you want to, and the details that you added might look
better, but they are not the original details.
I don't know how much details platinum prints can hold, but if details are
not important, you certainly can make 16x20 prints from 4x5 negatives.
<< 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? >>
Yes, it costs more to scan at higher resolution. If the lab (service bureau)
has a high-resolution scanner, than it is actually the same process for the
operator to scan in high or low resolution; but it takes longer to scan at
high resolution, so most bureaus charge more for scanning in high resolution.
2400 dpi is still a big number. A mid-range scanner (like Arcus II or II+)
can only scan at 600 dpi (optical resolution). They sometimes advertise as
2400 dpi but that is after interpolation. Low-end scanner can scan at the
same dpi (or sometimes higher like 1200 for newer model), but their dynamic
range is limited (i.e. you would loose details in highlights or shadows.)
A high-range scanner cost a lot, and I don't think anybody would buy it just
to do alt. processing unless he/she has gone commercial and is doing this a
lot.
P.S. For some who feel strange that I suddenly jump into the topic, I want to
explain that my background is in computer/electrical engineering. I got 2 BS
degrees in Electrical Engin. and Computer Engin. and a MS degree in EE. My
first job was quite interesting as I was the chief programmer for a graphic
package similar to AutoCad. So for me, the internals of how AutoCad, or Corel
Draw, or Photoshop works, or how tone curve, color calibration works is no
mystery to me. It is the old processes and the use of digital technology to
the old processes that interest me.
In the past, I haven't responded to any digital related messages because I
think it is not really that simple to really explain the concept through
emailing. One has to truly understand the concept of densitometry, how RGB
corresponds to densitometry, and how dye/pigment imperfection affects this
mapping. Otherwise we can only talk about cook-book type discussion like
setting this value to this or that, etc. If we talk too much into details,
then it might make the whole group feel like this is just another computer
newsgroup. Sorry if I am wrong to think this way. If you do have specific
question, I will try my best to answer if I do know the answer.
For those who are familiar with computer graphics, you can start
experimenting with using your computers for alt. processes. For those who are
not familiar with computers (e.g. Judy mentioned her students), I have to
say, honestly, it is going to be a while before they can fully use computer
to aid their photo. processes. Sure, they can buy a cheap scanner and/or
color printer and start editing and printing images the same day they buy the
equipments, but we are talking about serious image processing here like how
to get the color/density/balance right, etc.
Beside those theoretical problems, there are pratical problems too. Software
has bugs, operating system has glitches etc. The other day my scanning
software encountered a problem and Windows 95 kicked it out. After that I
couldn't start the software anymore since every time I started it, it got
kicked out again. For someone who is not really familiar w/ computers, this
can be intimidating because the whole thing just doesn't work anymore. For me
it's not too bad because I have worked as system programmer/engineer before
so I can somehow tell what the software is trying to do. Since the software
remembers it latest stage, everytime it starts up it goes back to that stage
and get kicked out again. So I searched and somehow found the setup file for
that software, and I temporarily renamed the file to fool the software. Since
the software couldn't find the setup, it created a new/default one, and
things work again.
Not everybody, not every photographer has that level of software/operating
system knowledge though. This statement by no means mean that I am looking
down on anybody. I am just trying to explain the plain fact. I love computers
and I think digital imaging is going to have a great impact on photography, I
personally think that those articles (esp. those in trade journal) saying
that this is the day that everybody should go digital have marketing as their
main purpose.
Sorry that this is getting so long, and sorry if it sounds personal, but I am
seriously not getting personal. I think the digital imaging world is still a
mess and hasn't stablelized yet. Look at the magazine articles about color
calibration or RGB to CMYK conversion. There aren't any concrete thing that
the authors can say about yet. Everybody is mainly describing their tests,
their feeling, their views on how this things should work. I have talked to a
person who wrote a popular software that does color calibration software for
film recorder and told him that his algorithm was incorrect. I have even
experiments that show the effect of the false algorithm.
For those who are getting serious into scanning, film recording, outputting,
etc., I am preparing a series of articles on color calibration. The outline
are all there, but I haven't got time to develop the articles yet. It is
going to be a while, esp. since English is not my first language. I don't
even know whether they will get published at all as I have no experience in
magazine submission (but I have read about it). If you have any experience
that you can share/help, please email me.
Where am I now? I'd better stop. Sorry again. Please don't flame. :)
Peace,
Dave Soemarko