Depends on the work. In some image, grain is desirable. Biggest I've printed is 36"x 48" - but I am interested in doing some printing with painted on emulsion. The biggest 4x5 I've seen enlarged with nary a trace of grain was about 80"x64" Sure you can do that with a digital back fo a 4x5, but its a scanning back and it costs over $20k... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Shomler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2001 9:48 AM Subject: Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings > >That said, I'm still all in film - because I like enlarging > >past the point that the D-30 image holds up > > What is that point (print size) for your work? > > > -- > Bob Shomler > http://www.shomler.com/gallery.htm
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings kmh
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings stuart
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings stuart
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Arthur Entlich
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Derek Clarke
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings RogerMillerPhoto
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Karl Schulmeisters
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Bob Shomler
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Karl Schulmeisters
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Walter Bushell
- RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings laurie
- RE: filmscanners: Digital Shortco... Derek Clarke
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Derek Clarke
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Isaac Crawford
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings RogerMillerPhoto
- Re: filmscanners: Digital Shortcomings Karl Schulmeisters