Scan Quality Vs Digital

[Don]

Hmm. That makes no sense at all:

Because you're confusing your desires with the process i.e., with what
is actually happening.

I'm not scanning for the sake of scanning,

Unfortunately, our wishes are of no concern to the scanner or, more
accurately, to the laws of physics and chemistry.

The moment you start a scan, you're scanning grain - whatever your
wishes or hopes may be - because grain is what's on the film.

I'm scanning for the sake of making prints.

Or for the sake of displaying on a monitor or for archiving, etc...

That's your (and mine and everybody else's) *end* goal but that's not
what scanning does. That's what image editing *after* scanning does
or, more accurately, tries to do. Wanting to minimize (preferably
eliminate) grain is one thing, but that doesn't change the facts:

When you scan, you scan grain. Period. There's no way around it
because the image of the original scene you want to recover is
represented on film using lumps of grain. So to get to that image you
*are* scanning grain regardless of what your wishes or hopes may be.

As that saying goes: You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.

Don.

 

[Gordon Moat]

What is this magical printing technology that you use which does not
introduce its own grain, even with a 20x loupe? ;-)

I suspect his inkjet has so much dot gain that everything blurs together. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>