When converting from film to digital there are a few critical things to keep in mind, not that you would probably notice the results at the size presented here. I do usually sharpen in Photoshop after scanning, when I have time, because the scanning process softens the image somewhat. It's not something I do particularly well, but I'm learning. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
It is not a problem with digital images per se, it is the variety of colour spaces used to describe them, and the compression techniques used.
I guarantee that with Photoshop (or better still 'Aperture') and a knowledge of gamma correction, a pro finds no difference between film and digital originals when reproduced in a similar medium.
Even the best (analog) photograph in the world needs to be corrected in repro before it goes to print, to match the paper type, printing method and ink type. There is no such thing as perfect image because it does not exist except as a matrix - whether film or digital it has to be reproduced, and the reproduction process will always change the theoretical 'ideal' matrix. Only a professional eye and expertise can 'adjust' reproduction parameters to compensate. You can't be me, I'm taken
There are differences in the characteristics of both film (even differences between positives and negatives) and digital capture that require compensation when producing a good print or a good publication. Grain in film is an issue when preparing for print, while digital noise introduced by digital conversion with cameras and scanners, etc have their own characteristics. I believe that most pros now prefer the digital dark room over the wet due to the control provided by new software, printers and papers/media. Since I never had a traditional dark room, I have no opinion, but I do really enjoy the digital darkroom. I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
