mostly 8x10 and 11x17 at home. But I can go much larger if I want with digital labs since my files are in the 80 Mpixel range to support large prints.
JCO -----Original Message----- From: Tom C [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:49 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? What size prints are you making from the 4 x 5 negs? Tom C. >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: RE: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? >Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 14:36:32 -0400 > >I'd like to comment. > >I can say from experience it is great because with color negative film >the film resolution is not as good as BW and the grain is worse than BW >so by going to LF with color, those limitations are nearly completely >eliminated. > >What I do is shoot 4x5 color neg, develop negs, scan negs, and print >myself at home. NO LABS involved. It is easy to do it all and the >results are beautiful. I never >use to do color LF until I discovered how easy and inexpensive it is to >develop >c-41 LF at home. > >JCO > >-----Original Message----- >From: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 2:23 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? > > >Allow me to aks the ultimate "Mr. Clueless" question. What's it like >doing color LF? > > >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 7/26/2004 4:12:30 PM >>> >Perhaps they are more gadget/equipment enthusiasts instead of image >enthusiasts? > >Bruce > > >Monday, July 26, 2004, 12:35:59 PM, you wrote: > >WR> I still don't understand why more enthusiasts don't shoot with >medium >WR> format. Most everyone seems married to the concept that 35mm is >the >WR> way to go, and don't even consider larger formats. >WR> I think this is a mistake. >WR> As an enthusiast/hobby format, 6x7 can't be beat. It has many of >the >WR> advantages of 35mm, with the advantage of lots more real estate. > >WR> William Robb > > >
