Well you make it sound like that anything better than 6MP DSLR is a waste and wont look signifigantly better. It will. There are still many photographers that use 8x10 and larger cameras because they want better than what you are talking about and if yours are stunning,then what are those? Super- duper stunning? Don't throw around hyped up terms and you wont get negative feedback. With 24 x36 prints the image capability of the human eye is incredible and a 6 MP DSLR is not capable of meeting that capabiliy or even coming close. You would need some thing on the order of 60 MP uninterpolated and that is assuming a perfect lens. So your off by a factor of at least 10 which is going to be CLEARLY visible. Imaging what a ideal 60MP image would look like, THAT would be stunning. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Cameron Hood [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 1:58 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: "Sunning" at 24x36 inches? On 23-Aug-05, at 9:58 AM, J.C. O'Connell wrote: > Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:12:50 -0400 > From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: "Sunning" at 24x36 inches? > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Content-Type: text/plain; > charset="us-ascii" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > > I suggest you rent/buy a 4x5 camera and scan those negatives and make > 24"x36" print from true 100MP files and maybe your definition of > "stunning" will change. No, actually they are 'stunning'. I have never achieved the results I get from the *ist D at that size on 35mm film. And I have shot medium and large format, thank you very much. I have seen a LOT of 4x5 and 8x10 images, your crankiness, including many gallery tours featuring prints by Adams, Dykinga, Wolfe, and others. Artistic considerations aside, the results I am getting from the *ist D compare very favorably to the medium format work I have seen, and are vastly superior to my results from the same lenses on 35mm film. At 4x5 and larger, if shot with good technique and with a good scan, large format prints are still superior, IMHO, but do you have to get so freakin' nasty, you miserable old coot? You're one of the reasons why I, and lots of other fine photographers, have left this list. Can't we just have a nice, pleasant discussion instead of you scolding everyone like we're ignorant children. Maybe we should just start swearing at each other. Go **** yourself! There... is that the kind of discussion you like to have on a list about photography? You should see your doctor about some Prozac suppositories - I'd recommend the 12" ones - maybe that'd cheer you up a bit. I'm sure there'd be lots of volunteers to insert them for you. Take a pill, it's only a camera. Cameron
