Are you trying to say there isnt any difference between 35mm and 67 prints, either analog or digitally printed? JCO
> -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 > > > > I can see a difference in my 8.5X11"s between > > 35mm, 67 & 4X5. The main differences are in > > sharpness, microcontrast, and grain. > > You dont need to go to huge prints to see the differences > > although it does make the differences more apparent > > when you go 11X14, 13 X19, or larger. > > You may want to have a read of what Mr. Johnson has to say on the subject. > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/LF-Con.htm > I suspect that what you are seeing has more to do with scanning > rather than > anything inherent in the format sizes. > I have 11x14 prints from both 6x7 and 4x5 on my walls. Both show similar > granularity (none) and tonality. > I make first generation real photographs though, on real > photographic paper. > This is not the same thing as producing a second generation electronic > facsimile of a negative, and then making a third generation print from it. > > William Robb > >
