> While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film, I would submit that > it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF. I personally don't > think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14 - even there the > difference is obvious.
Yeah, I totally agree with you there, Bruce. Granted, Tri-X is not the most enlargeable of films, but the largest prints I ever make from 35mm are 8x12. Mostly, my standard size is a 7x10.5 print on an 11x14 sheet. And while I like the way that looks, because I like 35mm and I like a small amount of grain, there's no way anybody would not be able to pick out which is which comparing 35mm and medium format at that size. I generally get really suspicious of people who say things like "I make outstanding 16x20s from 35mm negatives" and whatnot. It's one thing to say it, it's quite another to back it up. The difficulty in making a really good large print increases exponentially over making a good smaller one. It amplifies everything--not only the film's grain structure and the lens characteristics, but the photographer's technique at every level--camera technique and enlarging technique. The bigger the print, the more obvious the plane of exact focus relative to the "almost good enough" d.o.f. Poor focus and camera shake are amplified. Negative defects are amplified. Enlarger lens quality becomes more apparent. Enlarger rigidity, negative stage flatness, and especially enlarger alignment all become more critical. Making a _really good_ 16x20 from _any_ 35mm negative is not at all a trivial skill. As John Szarkowski once said of Ansel Adams's large prints--paraphrasing here--he's such a skilled printer that if he lavishes inordinate care and effort on his large prints, they look almost as good as his smaller ones. <s> --Mike
