Hi Jeff -
They certainly got 300dpi. Will update after I talk to 'em
On 1/22/07, Jeff Kelley <thocker@xxxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
>
> If you are doing your own scanning make sure to give them a file at
> least
> 2400 x 2400 pixels for a 20cm square print. You should not see jaggies
> with
> this resolution & a 20cm print.
>
> If they are scanning and you're getting jaggies as described, they
> screwed
> up....
>
>
>
> - Jeff -
>
> >From: chatanooga@xxxxxxxxx
> >Reply-To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: [rollei_list] Re: (mOT) - Printing square from bureau - and
> metric
> >issues
> >Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2007 21:30:51 +0000
> >
> >Digressing just a little bit I just just got some 20x20cm prints done
> (from
> >my own scans) from a 'pro' shop of my guitar
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/chatanooga/156779558/ and an interesting
> >problem (possibly to do with dpi) has come up: the guitar rosette which
> is
> >a
> >series of very fine concentric circles shows noticeable 'jaggies'/
> bumpy
> >circle in a few places in the print. I have printed the image once or
> twice
> >before on frontiers, etc and to the naked eye they have been perfectly
> >smooth. Which is what I'd expect as this is how they show up in the
> 100%
> >view in photoshop, etc. Maybe the lab did some wacky scaling - I am
> very
> >curious ot find out! In fairness to them at least the black and white
> >appeared to be pretty neutral - it shows the noritsu print to have been
> >quite purple.
> >And digressing further a little bit of trawling brought up this gem of
> an
> >exchange between 2 famous french photographers:
> >.....*When I first came to Paris, I had the nerve to show him some of
> my
> >Rolleiflex photos. He exclaimed that if God had wanted us to photograph
> >with
> >a 2 1/4 by 2 1/4 camera, he would have put eyes on our bellies. So I
> bought
> >a Leica *...............
> >
> >
> >On 1/21/07, ERoustom <eroustom@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > >> I have had some large (30 x 30) lightjet prints made from Rollei
>
> >> > >> negative that I have scanned myself, and when I look at them
> with
> >> > >> a loupe, I don't see pixels. They are just like optical
> prints,
> >> > >> in my experience, not inkjets.
> >>
> >>On closer inspection of my 5" sq. (12.7cm) prints with a standard 8X
> >>loupe, I can see pixels. They are fine, and finding them requires
> >>keying in to the pattern - ignoring the illusion of the image - but,
> >>for what it's worth, they are there.
> >>
> >>E.
> >>---
> >>Rollei List
> >>
> >>- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >>- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> >>in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
> >>
> >>- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> >>'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
> >>
> >>- Online, searchable archives are available at
> >>//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
> >>
> >>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Laugh, share and connect with Windows Live Messenger
>
>
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnkwme0020000001msn/direct/01/?href=http://imagine-msn.com/messenger/launch80/default.aspx?locale=en-us&source=hmtagline
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
