Hello Ryan, If I'm understanding you, you are curious to know at what size moving to Medium or Large format is noticeable compared to 35mm film. Before I made the move to Pentax 67, I wondered the same thing. After making the move, and shooting a couple of hundred rolls of MF film, I can tell you that you can see the difference in a 4X5 print. At that small size, the difference you see is mostly a tonal one. The color/tone of the print just seems a bit richer. The point at which sharpness and details start to look better on medium format is probably about at 8X10. You have to keep in mind that MF has inherently less DOF than 35mm so you do have to take that into account.
-- Best regards, Bruce Sunday, December 28, 2003, 3:00:36 AM, you wrote: RL> Shel: I think I phrased the question wrongly. I should have added the tag RL> 'all other things perfect'. I think the answer I was looking for was more on RL> the lines of say, "using 35mm Velvia 50 I've done <----this-----> big, and RL> using Portra 800 around <--so--> big using such and such lens on such and RL> such enlarger, for such and such display". RL> graywolf: I suppose I meant wall mounted in a gallery perhaps (which I RL> should have said too). RL> The issue I'm thinking about is sort of comparing formats, and trying to RL> gauge just around when you'd be (noticeably) better off using a larger RL> format. I added the bit about the enlarger/lens combo because it's detail I RL> don't normally take into account, and would like to slowly learn more about. RL> I understand the multiplicitous nature of the variables which go into the RL> production of a picture, and most certainly do not expect a textbook answer- RL> just other accounts which might help my own process. RL> Rgds, RL> Ryan RL> PS. I sometimes forget other people aren't psychic and that I actually have RL> to outwardly 'publish' my thoughts :-) Maybe more today than any other; RL> since yesterday, I've watched about 9 hours of BBC's Coupling. A mate lent RL> me a data DVD with 3 seasons on it! 4 more episodes to go- I might save it RL> for tomorrow. Beginning to have conversations with Jane in my head.. worse RL> still, they make sense! RL> ----- Original Message ----- RL> From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RL> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> RL> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2003 3:08 PM RL> Subject: Re: Just curious ... >> That's an unanswerable question in some ways. Far too many variables. >> However, I have seen exquisite prints made from Tri-X and that Kodak 3200 RL> film >> that were larger than two feet on the short side. >> >> Here are some of the variables on the exposure side: >> >> Film >> Developer choice >> Developing technique and accuracy >> Camera/Lens combination >> Alignment and adjustment of camera components >> Hand held or tripod used >> Aperture, shutter speed >> Focusing accuracy >> Exposure accuracy >> >> On the enlarging side we have: >> >> Enlarger alignment >> Enlarging lens >> negative alignment and flatness >> Type of enlarging head >> Stability of enlarger (Wall mounted is good <vbg>) >> Focusing accuracy >> Exposure accuracy >> >> On the printing side: >> >> Paper choice >> Developer >> Time and temperature accuracy >> >> I'm sure I've forgotten a few things. You'll note that care and precision RL> are >> the major contributors to sharp prints. >> >> >> Ryan Lee wrote: >> >> > Just out of curiosity, in anyone's own >> > experience, how big can one make a sharp print from a 35mm negative (and >> > which enlarger/ lens combo)? >> >>
