Kodak photomurals which used to take up one wall in Grand Central
Terminal in New York were eventually
produced using partial 35mm frames. True they were being viewed from
quite a few feet away, but they were
huge.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
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.
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
