Re: That Worn-Out, Old "Film vs. Digital" Debate

In article <qwWah.13008$9e.12377@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
babelfish <babelfish2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>There's no way to tell if an image has been manipulated if it's done well

>any more. Just because it's on film mean's nothing because we've been 
>putting high resolution digital files back onto sheet film for decades.
Then 
>there's the fact that all film becomes a digital file before it's printed

>anyway. If he really felt that way, he should go back to making
separation 
>negatives and printing plates optically rather than scans.

For fine grained film, dye cloud sizes can be in the order of micrometers.
Are you saying that you are printing to film at 25000 ppi?

If not, there is a good chance that the difference will be visible
under a microscope.


-- 
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
	-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency