Re: Scan Backs
Re: Scan Backs
- Subject: Re: Scan Backs
- From: Dick Busher <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:07:18 -0700
- Organization: Cosgrove Editions
>
on 7/17/02 Andrew Rodney responed to my post as follows:
>
>
> I have not yet seen digital capture files from any device equal the quality
>
> from
>
> 4x5 transparencies + a drum scan. Scans from 8 x 10's should be even more
>
> impressive.
>
>
If you go to www.digitaldog.net, there should be an article archived there I
>
did a good 3 years ago (Film vs. Digital) where I shot with a Betterlight
>
back and 4x5 film (scanned on you guessed it, a ScanMate 5000). The Scan
>
back just blew the scanned film out of the water. Way more tonal range (13
>
stops), no grain, vastly superior quality. Yes, it did take about 1 minute
>
or so to capture the image on the scan back (thank god nothing was moving).
>
But if you're talking strictly quality, scanned film simply can't hold a
>
candle to good scan back. I have the high rez files which in Photoshop at
>
100% view is far more impressive than what you see in print. Shoot me an
>
email with an address and I'll burn you a CD to see for yourself.
>
>
A good scan back can capture vastly more tonal information than any film can
>
capture. If you can't get it on the film, you can't scan it no matter how
>
good a scanner you have.
>
>
Andrew Rodney
Hi Andrew,
Yes I'd love to see your file.
However, I should point out that the proper experiment would be to send me the
film as well so that I can scan it and compare it to the digital capture.
Better yet, I should take a photo myself with my lenses and also do a digital capture
with the Betterlight back in order to do a test that satisfies my criteria.
Not all lenses are equal. I happen to have a couple of very sharp ones. The film
is also another variable. I use Ektachrome EPN.
I have done tests where other photographers have sent me their digital capture
file, and their film shot with the same camera/lens. So far, in tests done to
date (actually only a couple) my scans of their films were better than their
digital captures, IMHO. However, I am always willing to be proven wrong.
There is also the issue of file size, and the size of the final reproduction.
I have generated 600mb files for clients for extremely large enlargements. How
large a file is the Betterlight back capable of? A full page bleed in one of
my publications requires ~100mb rgb file. Is there a 35mm digital camera capable
of doing that? Is there any medium or large format backs capable of doing that? I
really do not know.
In the final analysis the proof is in the pudding. I have yet to see
reproductions of art objects in a 'coffee table' book that are as sharp as
those I have produced. That doesn't mean that they do not exist of course. I just
haven't seen any. FYI, I have attached a pdf of press releases regarding the
award winning books I have produced in case you are interested. I would even
be happy to send you printed samples if you would like to see them.
Thank you for your interest in this subject. I always learn something valuable
from your posts.
Dick Busher
Cosgrove Editions
7042 20th Place NE
Seattle WA 98115
888-507-7375
email@hidden
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.