Amateur Photographer Magazine

Skip to Content
Digital Photography Forum - A shared resource

Technical Discussions: Digital >> Scanning & Printing

 |  Print Thread
Malcolm_Stewart
Carpal \'Tunnel


Reged: 11/07/2005
Posts: 2548
Loc: Milton Keynes, UK
Re: In the good old days
      16/05/2008 13:00

Quote:

Which O.K probably weren't, the technical piece of gear that ultimately decided the final print resolution was the enlarging lens....




From memory, I think resolution depended on one of those reciprocal equations, like

1/RF = 1/RTl + 1/REl
where
RF = Final or overall resolution
RTl = Resolution of taking lens
REl = Resolution of enlarger lens

What is missing in the above, is contrast, without which the resolution can not be seen, so I'm not sure if there's any value in it anyway!

I've had commercial 20x16 Cibachromes made (optically, I believe) from very sharp 5"x4" trannies which were clearly of a significantly lower resolution than A3+ prints made on my Epson 1270 from scans made on my Epson 4870. Needless to say, I have not given any more business to the well known lab which made the Cibachromes! Just wish I could improve the colour rendition from my scans!

--------------------
Malcolm Stewart

Edited by Malcolm_Stewart (16/05/2008 13:01)

Post Extras Print Post   Remind Me!     Notify Moderator


Entire topic
Subject Posted by Posted on
* In the good old day's BrianT 16/05/2008 09:42
. * * Re: In the good old days Malcolm_Stewart   16/05/2008 13:00
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   16/05/2008 16:21
. * * Re: In the good old days Malcolm_Stewart   16/05/2008 16:41
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   16/05/2008 16:54
. * * Re: In the good old days Roger_Provins   16/05/2008 17:26
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   16/05/2008 17:36
. * * Re: In the good old days john_g   16/05/2008 18:48
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   16/05/2008 19:04
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   17/05/2008 07:07
. * * Re: In the good old days john_g   17/05/2008 19:40
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   17/05/2008 20:00
. * * Re: In the good old days SqueamishOssifrage   18/05/2008 09:05
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   18/05/2008 09:56
. * * Re: In the good old days NorthernNikon   18/05/2008 23:51
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   19/05/2008 07:26
. * * Re: In the good old days NorthernNikon   19/05/2008 09:04
. * * Re: In the good old days FenModerator   19/05/2008 09:09
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   19/05/2008 09:47
. * * Re: In the good old days FenModerator   19/05/2008 09:59
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   19/05/2008 10:12
. * * Re: In the good old days NorthernNikon   19/05/2008 10:04
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   19/05/2008 10:20
. * * Re: In the good old days NorthernNikon   19/05/2008 11:21
. * * Re: In the good old days BrianT   19/05/2008 14:31
. * * Re: In the good old days NorthernNikon   19/05/2008 15:45
. * * Re: In the good old days Monobod   23/05/2008 09:40
. * * Re: In the good old days john_g   23/05/2008 19:45
. * * Re: In the good old days Monobod   13/06/2008 00:22
. * * Re: In the good old days digitravel   24/05/2008 00:50
. * * Re: In the good old days Seven..   12/06/2008 23:03
. * * Re: In the good old days Malcolm_Stewart   23/05/2008 20:39
. * * Re: In the good old days beejaybee   23/05/2008 21:10

Extra information
0 registered and 0 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Damien Demolder, Fen, Siuya, GCW, Benchista, huwevans, Nigel Atherton, TheFatControlleR, AndrewC, mark_jacobs, daft_biker, Myk.R 


Print Thread
Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      Mark-up is enabled

Rating:
Thread views: 3374

Rate this thread

Jump to

Contact Us | Privacy statement Main website

Generated in 0.032 seconds in which 0.015 seconds were spent on a total of 12 queries. Zlib compression disabled.