On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 08:03:05 -0500, G- Blank
wrote:

In article ,
rafe b rafebATspeakeasy.net wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:10:24 GMT, "Scott W"
wrote:

It would also be interesting if one of the people who claims that optical
prints will have more detail then form scanning could do the same thing you
have, make an optical print and then scan the print.

So "BOTH" prints are scanned from the relative output?

What is "relative output"?

Really, the only thing "novel" about my post was that I
presented scans of prints, rather than (or in addition to)
a raw film scan. All the images (but one) are scans of
prints; either that smalll Letter-sized print from the Epson
R1800, or a 24x30" print from an Epson 7000.

No takers. I could have guessed.

First maybe it was missed (Like in my case) When
reading the LF group I tend to look for people asking questions
about how to do such and such versus people looking to prove a point.


We talked a few months ago about a "print exchange,"
but it never happened. I figured this was another way
to go about it, albeit on a very small scale.

All it involves is getting the print onto a scanner, which
can be a bit of a challenge, if it's a big print.

However: in both analog and digital, one can *enlarge*
as if making a big print, and yet print a small area of
that enlargement. I suspect that's what John C. will be
doing with my negative when he gets it.


rafe b
www.terrapinphoto.com