I don't own a DSLR, but I own 35mm and MedF bodies, and I work at a camera store/lab, so I've seen countless enlargements from all formats, including DSLRs. I've noticed that film, even 35mm, seems better able to capture really fine details. If I want a print I can examine extremely closely, I'm going with film, even if it's only 35mm.
However, for some reason, possibly the complete lack of grain, DSLR prints enlarge much nicer than 35mm and, if you go large enough, even better than MedF. Sure the prints begin to fall apart if you walk right up to them, but at a reasonable viewing distance, DSLR prints look amazing. I'm so used to seeing grain on enlargements bigger than 20x30 that it's mindblowing to see its absence. MedF, which is all I shoot now, is a good compromise right now between the complete lack of grain of digital and the smaller negative size of 35mm. It looks pretty good when enlarged to poster size (the grain isn't usually too objectionable), and it holds fine detail exceptionally well. Of course MedF kits are not as cheap, portable or feature-laden as 35mm or DSLR bodies, so there's definitely a downside, but it works for me right now. Chris On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:19:38 -0800, Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bill, > > From his previous posts, I get the feeling that he is a strong film > advocate who is trying to prove that digital (DSLR -35mm) isn't good > enough yet. Seems that I remember that he doesn't have a DSLR yet and > is going through the math calisthenics like many others. > > I can say, that I am having better luck blowing up *istD shots of > portraits, families and weddings than I ever had shooting 35mm with > equivalent best glass from Pentax. My clients are plenty happy with > the last eleven 20X30's that I have delivered. > > Bruce
