Re: Flatbed scanner transparency adapter?

Eric,
     Do you think there is a difference in quality/resolution between the
150-300? Because the file size more than triples, and it'd be a lot easier
to work with a 150 ppi file if I found a company that uses that size.
Chris
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen@worldnet.att.net>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2003 10:43 AM
Subject: RE: Flatbed scanner transparency adapter?

> Chris, There are several out put devices that will make RA4 prints in the
> digital landscape and some use 150 dpi, 300, and 250. I believe it is the
> Durst/Lamda that uses the 250 dpi input.
>
> Eric Neilsen Photography
> 4101 Commerce Street
> Suite 9
> Dallas, TX 75226
> http://e.neilsen.home.att.net
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christina Z. Anderson [mailto:zphoto@montana.net]
> > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:04 PM
> > To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> > Subject: Re: Flatbed scanner transparency adapter?
> >
> > a flatbed vs. a true slide scanner or a drum scan. Am I going to be
losing
> > anything here?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Dwayne
> >
> > Hi Dwayne,
> > For the purpose of gum, a flatbed scan is just fine. I am getting
> > everything that is on the neg in my gum print, and sometimes it looks so
> > sharp that it looks like a normal print. When I have thought that the
> > scanner was screwing up, upon taking a loupe to my neg, the screwup was
on
> > the neg already. I don't know what price the scanner you are talking
about
> > is, but the Epson 3200 is a charm. However, I had previously scanned
> > stuff
> > on an $80 Microtek scanner from Costco and that worked OK enough, too,
for
> > gum negs.
> > I have been scanning stuff to print out on 20x30 inch Fuji Crystal
> > Archive prints, and you would not know they are digital negs. That is,
> > from
> > an Epson 3200. I output it at 250 dpi to the service bureau, JPEG
format,
> > because they downsize the print to 250 anyway, even though you'd think
> > that
> > 300 or 360 would be better.
> > Chris
>
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 20 11:43:46 2003