Thanks for the replies.
Mikec makes excellent points that I would not argue with and have always incorporated into our production workflows (e.g., optimize for the press as the last step).
My purpose for asking, however, is more academic in nature. We use an Imacon 949 scanner to directly capture images from histologic specimen slides, and it does a wonderful job. The math just works out nicely that at our maximum capture resolution, we get 40 times life size (a nice scientific sounding round number)–only its 200 dpi at final size (about 1.5 times for a 133 line screen or 1.3 times for a 150 line screen).
200 reproduces nicely to our photo-quality printers, but everyone has been indoctrinated into the 300 dpi mantra for offset print.
In an article by Richard Anderson (peterkrogh.com/Pages/digital … gital.html), he makes an argument that digital capture contains more detail than scanning film (since you’re not dealing with film grain) and, therefore, the rule of thumb no longer applies.
The article seemed more opinion than fact-based on hard evidence, so I was hoping for something a bit more definitive on the subject.
The follow-on question is how AM/FM/hybrid screen modulation affects the equation.
Again, my thanks for your assistance.