Consumer Scanners and Print Size

[Ed Richards]

2x, 3x, 4x... We continue to debate this, but I think it misses the point. The useful magnification from a scanner depends on the frequency of the information in the negative. Information, in this case, is detail that is critical to the image, not detail that just happens to be in the negative. A field of grass is one extreme, and a gray wall would be the other.

If your pictures depend on getting every possible blade of grass as sharp as possible, then 3x is pushing it. If you are a vintage lens person making those wonderful soft, glowing portraits, then there may be no limit to your magnification, as long as you handle uprezzing correctly to control pixelation artifacts.

The audience for your prints only cares about sharp enough for the vision of the print to come through. For every giant sharp print that is in fashion, there are 5 giant not sharp prints that are just as fashionable.

[Bill_1856]

Not a bad evaluation of the situation. But a bit pointless. Thanks.

[Dick Hilker]

I agree, Ed: so many of the evaluations I've read here and elsewhere seem to assume the viewing public will examine the print with a 4X loupe and expect nothing less than absolute sharpness. Their conclusions that a 3200 ppi scan of a 4 X 5 film will only yield a 2X enlargement before showing serious image degradation (unless made on one of their $30K scanners) apparently overlooks the reality that a 24X enlargement of a 35mm film can look just fine from a normal viewing distance.

Naturally, its resolution undeer a loupe will be terrible, but it serves its purpose on a wall just as well as a billboard does from a hundred feet away.

[Frank Petronio]

It's like most other things photographic, you don't notice the "shortcomings" until you do a side by side and as fair as possible comparision between two techniques or tools.

I've also seen plenty of crappy drum scans.... If you're going to test and compare, you have to be using "best practices" for both subjects.

[Kirk Gittings]

I agree, Ed: so many of the evaluations I've read here and elsewhere seem to assume the viewing public will examine the print with a 4X loupe and expect nothing less than absolute sharpness. Their conclusions that a 3200 ppi scan of a 4 X 5 film will only yield a 2X enlargement before showing serious image degradation (unless made on one of their $30K scanners) apparently overlooks the reality that a 24X enlargement of a 35mm film can look just fine from a normal viewing distance.

Naturally, its resolution undeer a loupe will be terrible, but it serves its purpose on a wall just as well as a billboard does from a hundred feet away.

I look at digital prints with the same loupe that I look at at ssilver prints. My relatively uninformed clients standards that are important to me. It is mine.

[Kirk Gittings]

I agree, Ed: so many of the evaluations I've read here and elsewhere seem to assume the viewing public will examine the print with a 4X loupe and expect nothing less than absolute sharpness. Their conclusions that a 3200 ppi scan of a 4 X 5 film will only yield a 2X enlargement before showing serious image degradation (unless made on one of their $30K scanners) apparently overlooks the reality that a 24X enlargement of a 35mm film can look just fine from a normal viewing distance.

Naturally, its resolution undeer a loupe will be terrible, but it serves its purpose on a wall just as well as a billboard does from a hundred feet away.

I shoot large format for a reason and no 24x enlargement from a 35 would ever be good enough for me. I look at digital prints with the same loupe that I look at silver prints. Its not my relatively uninformed clients standards that are important to me. It is mine.

[Frank Petronio]

True. But on the other hand I've seen some 24x enlargements of 35mm from some of the (cough) greats... Klein, Lindbergh, Capa, Nachtway... that I'm quite envious of.

[Kirk Gittings]

True. But on the other hand I've seen some 24x enlargements of 35mm from some of the (cough) greats... Klein, Lindbergh, Capa, Nachtway... that I'm quite envious of.


You could add Salgado to that list. While I appreciate those prints of their work, those prints would not satisfy me and my work. I have never been satisfied by any print of my work from 4x5 over 16x20, though a couple of times I have made 20x24s. And I have had prints made by some of the finest printers in the country. I don't think they held up.

There is a reason I shoot LF and print relatively small.

[Frank Petronio]

Well carry it out to the logical end and start making contact prints Kirk!

ahh to have a light bulb and a couple of enamel trays ala Weston in his cabin ;-)

Except now you might come off like Ted Klayzinski if you try that today ;-)

[Bruce Watson]

2x, 3x, 4x... We continue to debate this, but I think it misses the point. The useful magnification from a scanner depends on the frequency of the information in the negative.

That a point is being missed is hard to argue. Which point, that we can argue about ad infinitum. ;)

The point I think is usually missed isn't just about the frequency of information which is true as far as it goes, but it's about the individual's desire to make a print that satisfies their own individual needs (which includes the frequency of information contained in their film). Thus my (and others) repeated suggestions that people get their film scanned in several different ways, make representative prints, and compare the prints. See what works best for them.

The 2x, 3x, 4x... suggestions are just guidelines. Just like manufacturers' film development guidelines. A place to start, with personal testing to home in on exactly what works for the individual.

[Kirk Gittings]

Well carry it out to the logical end and start making contact prints Kirk!

ahh to have a light bulb and a couple of enamel trays ala Weston in his cabin ;-)

Except now you might come off like Ted Klayzinski if you try that today ;-)

There is no "logical end". I am not talking here about Sandy King's standards or Jorge's or anyone's but mine.

I shot 8x10 for a few years and contact printed. The gain in quality was not as important as the facility of 4x5 and the light I was missing because of carrying my 8x10 camera fewer miles with fewer holders with slower setup time etc. Just like I owned Leicas for awhile and still own Hassleblads. None of those formats meet my quality expectations for my art. Everyone finds their quality zone.

In terms of scanning, the recommendations I give reflect the size of enlargement where a drum scan will clearly demonstrated a superior product over the prosumer flatbeds (having not tested the M-1 yet). This is extremely easy to demonstrate. It is 16x20 from a 4x5.

[Rob Champagne]

So why do you take a loupe to look at other peoples work?

[Bruce Watson]

There is no "logical end". I am not talking here about Sandy King's standards or Jorge's or anyone's but mine.

I shot 8x10 for a few years and contact printed. The gain in quality was not as important as the facility of 4x5 and the light I was missing because of carrying my 8x10 camera fewer miles with fewer holders with slower setup time etc. Just like I owned Leicas for awhile and still own Hassleblads. None of those formats meet my quality expectations for my art. Everyone finds their quality zone.

Yes. Exactly.

[roteague]

Not a bad evaluation of the situation. But a bit pointless. Thanks.

Come on now, the horse isn't dead enough yet. :rolleyes:

[Kirk Gittings]

So why do you take a loupe to look at other peoples work?

Why do you shoot LF?

If Sebastion Delgado tried to do his work with an 8x10 it wouldn't work, it would be totally different. His work is about emotional impact and not fine detail. I can get the whole point from 4 feet away. By the way his work is superbly printed for 35mm, but you gain nothing by putting your nose on the print.

And FWIW I have taken a loupe or my HP reading glasses (gallery security frowns o putting a lope on a print) to every Ansel Adam, Weston, Wynn Bullock etc. exhibit I have ever been to.

[Ted Harris]

BTW, for my own work I totally agree with Kirk. I have never seen a print larger than 16x20 from a consumer scan that I would consider hanging for exhibit. In fact, rarely have I seen one that large; to me the limit is usually 11x14/12x15. It's subjective and its personal and it depends on the viewing environment. I took look very closely at every print I see on exhibit, why not? Not to say that I don't back up a foot or soo too when viewing. Not to say that other art doesn't fall apart when you view it too closely (have you ever put your nose up to a Pissarro) but that is why 4x5 and 5x7 are my choice, it allows me to retain sharpness and detail when viewed close. During most of the 1970's I shot with Leica M's more than with my LF gear and I was never happy with the prints I made larger than 11x14. Same fromany of the consumer scanners I have used for 4x5. Not the case when I use a high-end scanner. I recently did a print of the harbor in Camden Maine shot on 4x5 Velvia from the top of a nearby mountain. I scanned the film on the IQsmart 3 and the final print is 24x30; every tiny building in the town, even every window in every building is crisp.

[Ed Richards]

The particular point I was getting at has been well made by Kirk and Ted - for them, sharpness is very important, and delineates the acceptable size of their prints. But other photographers have other values, yet when you see the prints of those photographers you do not notice that they are not critically sharp. AA comes to mind. Having been close up for enough to take a hard look at several of his most famous prints, they are beautiful, but they are not sharp in the sense that Kirk and Ted are talking about. Yet they appear sharp enough that the reaction of the viewers is that they are sharp.

I am not trying to change the mind of Ted or Kirk - they have their views on what they want in a print, and it works very well for them. All things being equal, I would prefer drum scans of my work to print as sharp as I could, but that would stop me from doing much printing.

I am concerned that many of the readers of this forum who are new to scanning will not understand that Kirk and Ted's (and many others on this forum - how else to explain ULF without getting into psychiatry) views of the necessary sharpness of a print are beyond those of the audience for your prints. They are strictly internal to the photographers. If the scan from the consumer scanner looks good enough for you, it is good enough. We ultimately do this for ourselves, otherwise we would be shooting digital.

[Kirk Gittings]

If the scan from the consumer scanner looks good enough for you, it is good enough.

While that is true enough in the abstract, there is a reason that people ask me (and Ted and others for that matter) to teach this and many other photography subjects. Part of which, is that one may not, based on their equipment and level of knowledge etc., be getting the most into and from their images either technically or aesthetically. If you take a class from me, I will want you to know what is possible with the equipment you have and what better equipment will do for you too. I would be cheating a student otherwise. Photography schools and workshops are booming like never before.

Is that "good enough for you, is good enough" true of knowledge of the law too? Don't you teach at a law school?

I assume most people on this forum are striving for excellence, whether they are amatuers or professionals.

[Brian Ellis]

You could add Salgado to that list. While I appreciate those prints of their work, those prints would not satisfy me and my work. I have never been satisfied by any print of my work from 4x5 over 16x20, though a couple of times I have made 20x24s. And I have had prints made by some of the finest printers in the country. I don't think they held up.

There is a reason I shoot LF and print relatively small.

Me too. The biggest print I was ever happy with from a 35mm negative was 8x10 and that was stretching it, 6x9 was really the more usual limit. Which is why I switched to 6x7, which is why I switched to 4x5. With 4x5 a 4x enlargement has been the maximum for me. I also contact printed 8x10s. While I really enjoyed using an 8x10 camera I thought the difference in technical quality of an 8x10 contact print vs an 8x10 print from a 4x5 negative was overrated. There may have been some gain in tonal gradation but to me it was subtle and wasn't enough to offset the various disadvantages of 8x10, as enjoyable as that format is.

Those are my standards, others have their own and that's fine. I think Ed's point is well-taken. Just because I'm not happy with anything greater than a 4x enlargement from a 4x5 negative for the things I do doesn't mean there's something wrong with someone who is happy with something larger for their work.

[tim atherton]

Burtynsky regularly prints up to 40"x50" from 4x5. The prints I have examined closely at first hand both on the gallery walls and out of their frames left me actually somewhat surprised that they looked so exceptionally sharp, smooth and full of detail. In fact on the few of them that were shot with 8x10 it was a close call to actually tell until you got your nose up against them.

I'd be hard pressed to say there was any problem with him enlarging by that factor based on the prints I've seen.

[Ed Richards]

> Is that "good enough for you, is good enough" true of knowledge of the law too? Don't you teach at a law school?

Trust me Kirk, almost no one in law is doing it strictly for personal satisfaction. You would also be horrified at how almost all of the law is about "good enough" - few clients can afford all the law has to offer. What you want as a client is a lawyer who is good at knowing what is good enough for your needs, commensurate with what you can afford to pay. Very much like commercial photography.

> I assume most people on this forum are striving for excellence, whether they are amateurs or professionals.

I hope most of the people on this forum are striving for personal satisfaction.

None of this is meant to undermine the importance of learning to use your tools correctly. A lot of people are pretty clueless about scanning and do not get anywhere near as good results as their scanner is capable of. I think classes in scanning are a great idea, and I think it is important to see what a good scan is like to have a benchmark.

[Kirk Gittings]

I perceive this forum very much as a learning environment where everyone is a student and everyone is a teacher and excellence is the goal. But maybe that is just me. Personal satisfaction and excellence are pretty indistinguishable in photography to me, but on the other hand this is what I do for a living and for fun. According to my lovely wife, I am simply a workaholic, but that is another discussion.

[Greg Lockrey]

I perceive this forum very much as a learning environment where everyone is a student and everyone is a teacher and excellence is the goal. But maybe that is just me. Personal satisfaction and excellence are pretty indistinguishable in photography to me, but on the other hand this is what I do for a living and for fun. According to my lovely wife, I am simply a workaholic, but that is another discussion.

It's called passion....we know that there is always a better way of making an image it is just a matter of cost and training, we do the best we can do with what we have at hand. ;)

[Dick Hilker]

I get the impression from some comments that excellence correlates most with the sharpness of an image, rather than its artistic merit or the effectiveness of a print in its intended viewing environment. Isn't the 24X 35mm print that captures a moment arguably better than the 4X ultrasharp 8X10 boring image of a dead tree stump? The essence of our work might better be expressed as appropriateness, rather than obsessing over technical perfection that might be considered excessive for its intended purpose.

It surely is a matter of personal standards and satisfaction, but I seem to detect an aura of condescension in those who suggest that, while most might be satisfied with mediocrity, their standards are at a higher level and, hence, superior.

I think Greg's summed it up eloquently: "It's called passion....we know that there is always a better way of making an image -- it is just a matter of cost and training, we do the best we can do with what we have at hand."

While I prefer to use my 4X5 whenever conditions permit, and do my best to create work that reflects my love and passion for the art, I've tried to remain flexible enough to see the beauty in some of the exquisite pictures made with a pinhole camera. Unlike most other art forms, photography is technology-dependent and it would be naive to not recognize that relationship: but, to obsess over the technical aspects at the expense of its potential for artistic expression misses the point, doesn't it?

[Kirk Gittings]

Dick, the assumption when answering the endless questions about properly using the flatbed scanners is that when one is shooting LF that they want to preserve that quality in an enlargement. I don't think the right answer would be to not worry about it=just make aesthetically more interesting images.

The feeding frenzy that comes with every new flatbed scanner, is because people are not satisfied with the quality they are getting from the existing scanners. I have been playing that game since the Epson 3200 buying every new scanner that came out (I finally came to the realization that the gap was so huge between those and a good pro flatbed or drum scan that I should go that route for my exhibition prints).

Manufacturers keep pushing the technology because they know there is a demand for it.

[sanking]

While I prefer to use my 4X5 whenever conditions permit, and do my best to create work that reflects my love and passion for the art, I've tried to remain flexible enough to see the beauty in some of the exquisite pictures made with a pinhole camera. Unlike most other art forms, photography is technology-dependent and it would be naive to not recognize that relationship: but, to obsess over the technical aspects at the expense of its potential for artistic expression misses the point, doesn't it?


I use LF because for me detail is one of the interesting characteristics of photography. Before the age of photography the ability to portray detail was highly valued by many artists. Some of the work of the Dutch and Flemish miniature artists is simply fascinating. Detail is clearly not the only important characteristics of photography, but for me it is very important and much of my work attempts to maximize this characteristic.

Others are perfectly free to do what they will and I am not seeking to impose any limitation on your ability to express yourself with miniature cameras or pinhole cameras. By the same token, please don't tell me that seeking to control the technical aspects of the medium misses the point. In doing so I think you miss the point, which is that you don't have the right to dictate to me the correct concept of artistic expression. I will make that determination on my own, thank you.

Sandy King

[Bruce Watson]

...to obsess over the technical aspects at the expense of its potential for artistic expression misses the point, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. There's nothing wrong with mastering the craft. There's nothing wrong with learning the materials. Most teachers encourage this. The idea is to master the craft so that when you are trying to make art you don't have to simultaneously worry about getting the craft right because you've mastered it and it's become second nature. Just another tool to use. And to master the craft, you have to learn the technical details.

So I'd say that obsessing over the technical aspects, at least until you fully understand them, is the point, at least until you fully master them.

Said another way, you won't improve unless you make the effort.

[Rob Champagne]

has anyone thought of printing direct to photographic paper. That might be a cool idea. You'd cut out all the endless crap of talking digital and save yourself a lot of time and expense.

[Kirk Gittings]

Rob, I do that too and have been since the 6th grade.

[Dick Hilker]

I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. I personally value the technical aspects of photography very highly but, as an elderly amateur, have been constrained to using a modest collection of equipment: Wista 45RF with a few lenses, Microtek Scanmaker 1000XL, Nikon Coolscan 9000 for my 35mm and MF work, Epson 2200 and 7800 printers. I know this must seem rather pathetic when compared to the very expensive professional outfits many of you speak of, but it has enabled me to do quite well in both regional shows and sales of my work.

What I meant to suggest was that, although learning the craft and mastering its technical aspects is critical to growth as an artist, it's the artistry that I feel distinguishes the exeptional photographer from the rest.

I also realize that the demands of a professional are quite different from those of an amateur who has only himself to satisfy. I've learned a lot from these discussions and greatly admire the skill relfected in many of your portfolios. They've elevated my aspirations and, since I have no one else to "talk shop" with, helped to keep me moving through the inevitable slumps. Many thanks to all!

[roteague]

has anyone thought of printing direct to photographic paper. That might be a cool idea. You'd cut out all the endless crap of talking digital and save yourself a lot of time and expense.

and a lot more fun than sitting in front of a computer, moving a mouse around :rolleyes:

[Ted Harris]

I stopped doing wet color prints some five years ago and among the reasons I switched to digital was the cost. It costs me less to get to the final print now than it did then .... and I get there faster and the prints are better.

[Bruce Watson]

...since I have no one else to "talk shop" with...

You can always come here to talk shop. That's what this place is!

[sanking]

[QUOTE=Dick Hilker;298748]I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. I personally value the technical aspects of photography very highly but, as an elderly amateur, have been constrained to using a modest collection of equipment: Wista 45RF with a few lenses, Microtek Scanmaker 1000XL, Nikon Coolscan 9000 for my 35mm and MF work, Epson 2200 and 7800 printers. I know this must seem rather pathetic when compared to the very expensive professional outfits many of you speak of, but it has enabled me to do quite well in both regional shows and sales of my work.

/QUOTE]

Just to put things in perspective, your *modest collection* of equipment is considerably beyond what most *amateurs*, young or elderly, have at their disposal.

Most people I know who have Microtek 1000XL, Nikon Coolscan 900 and Epson 2200 and 7800 are not complaining about their lack of resources.

Sandy King

[Greg Lockrey]

[QUOTE=Dick Hilker;298748]I apologize if I gave the wrong impression. I personally value the technical aspects of photography very highly but, as an elderly amateur, have been constrained to using a modest collection of equipment: Wista 45RF with a few lenses, Microtek Scanmaker 1000XL, Nikon Coolscan 9000 for my 35mm and MF work, Epson 2200 and 7800 printers. I know this must seem rather pathetic when compared to the very expensive professional outfits many of you speak of, but it has enabled me to do quite well in both regional shows and sales of my work.

/QUOTE]

Just to put things in perspective, your *modest collection* of equipment is considerably beyond what most *amateurs*, young or elderly, have at their disposal.

Most people I know who have Microtek 1000XL, Nikon Coolscan 900 and Epson 2200 and 7800 are not complaining about their lack of resources.

Sandy King

Unless they really want an Aztec Premiere and a Roland 12 color. ;)

[Ted Harris]

To take this back to the original question. As part of my tests of the new Microtek M1 I resized the image to print at 24x30/300 dpi that you can see in the M1 thread sharpened accordingly and printed it on the Z3100. I was surprised. It wasn't up my standards, it was not as sharp as the same image from a scan done on the Cezanne, but, dang, it was nice. Even putting your nose into it I suspect it would satisfy may/most serious amateurs. I still don't recommend printing that large from a consumer scanner but I am beginning to think that the results from the M1 are definitely superior. BTW, I also printed it smaller and that print is excellent, still some parts that are not quite the same as the print from the Cezanne scan but absoutely acceptable.

[Dick Hilker]

"Most people I know who have Microtek 1000XL, Nikon Coolscan 900 and Epson 2200 and 7800 are not complaining about their lack of resources.

Sandy King"


I'm not complaining, Sandy, but sometimes feel a bit out of my league here when the experts seem to dismiss such equipment as distinctly inferior to their own (or their employers') and suggest that it's only possible to get high quality scans with gear that costs as much as all my stuff put together did.

I haven't had the opportunity to view their work in person and might agree with them if I were in the habit of whipping out a loupe to scrutinize a print, but in a practical sense feel that if professional landscape and other photographers buy my work for their homes (and they do,) my prints couldn't be too terribly bad.

[Kirk Gittings]

Who is dismissing your equipment? Or by stating the limitations of equipment we are somehow dismissing it? I don't get it. You currently have a better scanner and printer than I do (I may have a better scanner if I can get a computer running that will drive it), but I know the limitations of equipment and when I need to get access to better or spend money on things like drum scans. I am continually testing equipment because I want to know its strenghts and limitations and I share that here and with my students.

What I find a little odd is the way that people seem to take equipment reviews personally.

[Dick Hilker]

You're right, Kirk: I guess it's the high degree of personal involvement with photography that leads to that kind of relationship with its tools. They are, after all, only tools and a criticism of them shouldn't be taken personally.

When equipment is reviewed and declared "not up to my standards," it shouldn't be inferred that it's necessarily inferior -- just not good enough for the quality of work the reviewer demands of his gear. But, probably good enough for those with lower standards.

[Bruce Watson]

When equipment is reviewed and declared "not up to my standards," it shouldn't be inferred that it's necessarily inferior -- just not good enough for the quality of work the reviewer demands of his gear. But, probably good enough for those with lower standards.

I wouldn't necessarily put it that way. How about: "probably good enough for those with different needs?" I'm a drum scanner owner/operator, and I routinely advise people who don't need an enlargement of 8x or more that it's possible that a drum scan is overkill for their needs.

What matters is the prints. If the prints satisfy you, what do you care what anyone else thinks? In particular, what anyone else thinks about the workflow that got you there? As the man said: "there are many paths to the waterfall."

[Kirk Gittings]

Dick, For instance I have owned somewhere between 11 and 13 prosumer flatbeds since the 3200, including rejects, I have jumped through every conceivable whoop to get one of these to give me a decent 16x20 scan from a 4x5, because I prefer to keep control of the whole process in house. They haven't to date, even compared to an Imacon, much less to a pro flatbed or drum scan, the difference is palpable. But low and behold most experienced LF photographers I know have had the same experience. That doesn't just speak of my standards. It speaks to LF standards. It speaks to preserving that detail which is a big part of why most of us shoot LF. And in the larger scheme of things, I am not even that anal or picky compared to many people on this forum or in the broader LF community I associate with. And frankly I don't agree with Bruce, perhaps because I teach photography. If I think someone can do something better, I tell them (in a constructive way hopefully), they may be working in a vacuum and not even be aware that more is possible. It is a modern myth that here are no standards but personal ones. One may reject them, but they do exist.

Here is what I have done since I got serious about photography in 1978. I take a small print of mine to the shows of people who's skills I respect (in off hours) and compare them. It is very enlightening and humbling. I did this with Wynn Bullock and AA in the late 70's and I have done it with every new process I have tried to master since. This is not about imitation, but about seeing what is possible technically and taking a good hard look at your work.

[Bruce Watson]

...And frankly I don't agree with Bruce, perhaps because I teach photography. If I think someone can do something better, I tell them (in a constructive way hopefully), they may be working in a vacuum and not even be aware that more is possible. It is a modern myth that here are no standards but personal ones. One may reject them, but they do exist.

We don't have to agree; not all discussions result in agreement. Diversity of thought is a good thing!

How about I expand on and hopefully clarify my point. I know a guy who will only print 10x8 prints. That's what he wants, and it's all he wants. While you might be able to show a small quality improvement from a consumer flat bed scanner by using a drum scanner to make that 2x enlargement from a 5x4 original, I doubt seriously if it's worth the time, trouble, or expense to do it.

Another example is someone local who is deep into soft focus and who prints no larger than 20x16. Again, probably not worth the time, trouble, or expense to make a drum scan (10x8 film in this case) for a 2x enlargement.

While I'll agree that there are some general standards that apply to photography in general and LF in particular, I still think that one's own personal standards trump the general standards. But one of the reasons it's good to know the rules is because it makes it more fun to break them. But when you are teaching clearly you should be teaching what's possible (the edge of the envelope if you will). If some of the students eventually decide they don't want to go there, at least it's not because they don't know.

[Dick Hilker]

Kirk, I respect your opinions and experience, yet tend to agree with Bruce's position as it applies to an amateur in his mid-seventies. I don't derive an important income from photography, nor do I have the room for a larger scanner. Though I strive for the greatest amount of detail in my prints, I've produced 6X enlargements that are impressively sharp when viewed from a few inches away. If the standards for LF call for inspection with a high-poweed loupe, perhaps mine would fall short, but they're beautiful when viewed at the distance for which they're made.

It's not that I don't want to improve the quality of my work or fail to understand the goals of other photographers, but perhaps I'm just being realistic about being an artist, rather than a technician, and using the best tools at my disposal to make prints that satisfy my needs and level of aspiration. Otherwise, I might become discouraged and frustrated because my print isn't quite as sharp as someone else's when examined with a 10X magnifier.

Then, I'd have to find another way of sharing the beauty around me and that's too much to risk.

[Kirk Gittings]

I understand Dick and if I saw your prints I would say something like "man that is a gorgeous print, blah, blah, blah, have you thought about getting a drum scan to hold some of the fine detail a little better on close inspection?" And if you gave me your well thought out, whatever, reasons why not, I would finish by saying again, "well done, that is a gorgeous print".

But sometimes I get the reaction of "is a drum scan that much superior" and off we go into a whole range of fruitful topics.