On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 16:40:19 -0400, "K W Hart" wrote:
:
: "Alan Browne" wrote in message
: ...
: On 2011-08-20 11:45 , Michael wrote:
:
: We are losing high fidelity and in photography we are losing the
: high fidelity of film.
:
: High fidelity of film? Really? Do you really believe film, except the
: finest grain films, when used with critically sharp technique, is better
: than the average digital SLR? Really?
:
: Deluded you are if you do.
:
: Unfortunately, most prints from negatives are made on scanner/lightjet type
: printing systems, such as those used in the one-hour photo "labs". This
: method of printing brings the quality of the negative down to the level of a
: digital print.

Almost certainly "below", not "down to". Because the scanner's digitization
will not match the natural digitization of the film. (Let's face it: "analog"
photography is a misnomer. An image on film is a digital image; its pixels are
just not arranged in a regular array like those in an image produced by a
digital camers.)

: When negatives are printed optically with a good quality enlarger, the
: 'fidelity' of film is preserved in the print. If you care to come to my
: studio, I can show you side-by-side comparisons of digitally printed vs
: optically printed negs. Unfortunately, there is no way to show this online,
: as the prints would have to be converted to digital images.

In the scenario you describe, it really makes no difference whether film or
digital is capable of greater sharpness. Introducing the scanner step is bound
to degrade the resolution you could otherwise get. Whether Alan's right or not
(and I think he probably is), a picture taken on film should always be printed
with a decent film enlarger.

Bob