----- Original Message ----- From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Just printed the test pictures from the *ist D...
> On 9 Aug 2003 at 17:50, William Robb wrote: > > > We've been here before. I have printed both 4x5 and 6x7 optically. Up to > > print sizes of 11x14, there is a small difference in visible quality, with > > 4x5 having the edge. It isn't a great enough difference to be visible at > > normal viewing distances, you really have to get up close to the pictures to see > > it. At 16x20 and larger, the 4x5 definitely shows visible improvement at normal > > viewing distances. I don't know if the same holds true for scanned negatives. > > How do you think Johns LF (300MB+) scans would hold up against my Mamiya 7 (67) > shots scanned at 4000dpi (700MB+)? I think we are comparing scanners again. My recent look at scanned vs. optical prints at a minilab level didn't look so hot from the scanner perspective either. Really, what it boils down to is whats visible on the print. At 11x14, I am not pushing the limit of the 6x7 format overly hard, and so the print quality holds up quite well compared to the larger film. Anything larger, and the bigger negative starts to have an advantage. William Robb
