While I am skeptical about the quality of large prints made with a 6mp camera, I have seen the quality of the results made from 35mm negatives that others thought were "impossible." There is a lab here that does incredible work, and which uses only the highest quality equipment and the most talented people to accomplish that work, and until i saw the "stunning" results they get I'd not have thought it possible. I saw a six or eight food wide print made from a section of a 35mm negative that just blew me away. It was practically grainless even when scrutinized from just a mere few inches from the print, and the tonality was quite amazing. This lab uses only a Tango drum scanner, has developed its own algorithms for processing, and has a guy working the scanner and the software who is quite exceptional.
The lab has a 6-foot high B&W pic of Mother Teresa in their lobby that is printed on "color" paper, and it rivals a silver B&W print in every way imaginable. A couple of years ago I mentioned on the list the exceptional quality I saw in Salgado's B&W prints, many of which were 36" or a bit larger on the long end, and which were made using Tri-X or TMAX 3200, and was told by several PDMLers that i was full of shit about the quality - that such quality could not be achieved. Anyone who has seen Salgado's work knows otherwise. My credibility (such as it was/is) was supported to some some small degree by one or two list members who also saw the exhibit, and felt similarly about the quality of the prints. Now, what's this got to do with obtaining "stunning" results from a 6mp Pentax DSLR. Little, except that until one sees the prints in question, their quality is really unknown, and that most anything is possible. Yes, I am still skeptical, but skeptical with an open mind. There are just too many variables to consider, too many skill levels involved, and to many different ways of seeing the same thing to rush to judgement. Over the years I have seen any number of things that were improbable or impossible. Cameron has generously offered to send me a print for evaluation. I'm going to take him up on the offer, and will post a message about what I think about the results he's obtained. Anyone who knows me knows that I am critical, dogmatic, and slow to change my mind about anything without seeing things first hand, and, regardless of anything else, I am honest in my evaluations (as I see things). It is very easy for someone to work out a bunch of numbers to prove a point. In this case so many megapixels are needed to get such and such quality, and so on. But judging the quality of a photograph is not a numbers game. One must alsoi consider what the eye and the brain and past experience contribute to what one sees. One must consider, also, the image itself - what kind of detail does it contain, what are the colors and their relationship to one another, and so on. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > 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.
