Tom DelRosario wrote: > Not everyone agrees on this topic. West Coast Imaging states that 11x14 is the largest you can get before you'd be better off with MF. (Actually, they say 11x14 is "almost" the quality of MF: http://www.westcoastimaging.com/wci/page/info/articles/formatsize.html). I was just reading a book an MF photography by Roger Hicks, and he states that, for b&w photos, he wouldn't go over 8x10 with 35 mm, for tonality reasons. > > But I know that Galen Rowell has enlarged some of his work to 40"x50", and he only works 35 mm.
Tim Munro wrote: > Most of the trackside work I do is on ISO 100 print film and my price list > for enlargements offers sizes up to 20" x 30", > I occassionally get put in the position of having to > recommend against the bigger size after checking a negative on the lightbox. > With the right negative though the results can be brilliant. Thanks, Tom and Tim. And, obviously, the viewing distance also has an effect. Cheers Keith * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
