Jac, by a strictly academic answer and with no enlargement at the paper, the chain of lp/mm you cite would result in about 22 lp/mm at the enlarging paper at 1:1. Each doubling of the enlargement halves the lp/mm at the paper.
Of course per the above arguments, all of which I think have a degree of validity, there is a lot more to the comparison than just academics.
For me, how the textural and fine detail of the original scene is preserved through the entire workflow is important in some cases. If the film original contains the desired level of detail then from my experience the best replication is obtained from a high quality optical system. I tend to agree with Drew on this.
OTOH I find a scanning digital workflow utilizing a 2000 nominal spi scan, for example, with judicial sharpening in PS can actually appear to be a sharper print. For some images I prefer this. My problem is that the digitally enhanced sharpness is to some degree artificial in that it does not replicate the fine detail or microcontrast in the original scene (or on film) like a high quality enlarging lens can. This is particularly true using a fairly high contrast enlarger.
I would certainly cite the Ilfochrome work of Chris Burkett for state of the art in optical reproduction but I also work with Ilfochrome and 2000 spi scanning and would generally confirm what I said above.
I'm not sure the difference is at all significant when we consider very high quality drum scanning in comparison to an all optical workflow.
Nate Potter, Austin TX.
Bookmarks