Never admit you have learned something or people will take you by the hand to el ementary school. Oh well, I may have done it for others. Sorry!
Never admit you have learned something or people will take you by the hand to el ementary school. Oh well, I may have done it for others. Sorry!
My answer wasn't just for you. You weren't speific about what you do or don't know about scanning, so I told you what works for me. There was no intent to sound paternalistic and if I came off that way then I'm sorry. I was trying share what I know with everybody, and even though you might even know more about scanning than I do, someone else who doesn't know the basics might be able to use the info.
Jon, sorry for my impatience. My remark wasn't just for you either, please don't be offended. I sometimes place an answer after reading a thread hastily and when going through the content and pre vious answers again, realize I was a bit off topic or was just repeating what others had already said. In this thre ad, I was pointing out the difference of quality between the bicubic and bilinear mode in Photoshop when preparing sma ll images for the web. Some of the factors explained in other answers, as yours, are very important but are on a di fferent level (yours concerns printing). If I shared this finding, it's because I wanted to spare some other p hotographers the false maneuver of using the default bicubic mode for the purpose of making small images and gettin g rather coarse images that way. But of course all photographers already knew what I thought was a major discover y! Cheers.
Paul, though I thoughtI know a lot about Photoshop your discovery was new to me and of elementar relevance. I've already forwarded this to many friends and companions. Thank's!
The kind words and clarification are understood and accepted. It is a pleasure to converse intelligent and mature grown-ups. Thanks
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks