Still disagree, 4X5 is approx 1.7 times larger linear and and 2.95 times the area of 67. Thats 2.95 times the infomation assuming equal quality optics are used. When you look at a print you see the area, which is two dimensions so using linear Mag factors of 3X and 5X is wrong. I am seeing way more detail in my 4X5 negs, than in my 67 negs. Seeing is believeing. JCO
> -----Original Message----- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 7:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 > > > > OK, your saying you cant hardly tell the difference between > > 67 and 4X5 on an 11X14 print. Maybe your 4X5 lenses > > arent up to snuff? 4X5 is 3 time larger than 67 and > > the difference in sharpness should be clearly visable. > > JC, you are missing (deliberately, I suspect) the point. Collin > gets it. He > said it himself, the difference of magnification at 11 x 14 is > very slight, > and well within the quality limits of both film sizes. > I recall reading an article in DCCT a while back regarding this > very thing. > The gist from several respected photographic artists and > technicians was in > agreement with what I have found in my own work. > Perhaps you need to actually make photographic prints to see it. > For myself, I don't really care what you think you know. > > William Robb > >
