At 17:16 28.1.2001 EST, you wrote:
>Here's an interesting thought that came to me as I read your post (we agree
>there more than disagree): say you (Frantisek) have a striking 4 x 6 print,
>so much so that you want to enlarge it.
>How many times has the enlargement disappointed you?
>(Quite frequently for me.)
>
>Mafud
Mafud, unfortunately, it was quite often ;( It propably tells something
about my consistent "technique" ;( That's why I decided to now look over
all the negs with 15x loupe, and pick only the very best for big
enlargement, and try to keep the others, good but not [sharp/not
blurred/better composed] enough only to smaller sizes, very finely printed
and framed, e.g. only to 12x18cm (5x7"). So I am perhaps negating some of
my previous posts ;-)
It's interesting that Bill finds the same with 4x5" negs to 11x14" blowups,
though!
I tend to agree with you on that some subjects being bad for big blowups
(ever seen the "Blowup"?). Smiling baby faces must be that, and general
portraiture propably as well (I have not done enough larger-than-lifesize
portraiture, but some of my concert photography, being portraiture as well,
was too much at 30x45cm exhibition prints... not nice seeing that sweating
drummer's face bigger-than-lifesize ;-)
Frantisek
P.S.: perhaps I should amend my previous posts as to "size does NOT matter"
;) then again, when I look at big blowup of landscape or detail...
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org.
