True, Christian. Today i saw a quite stunning picture (Street shot from Olso) printed i A3 (12x16 inches) from a 3MP ditigal Olympus P&S camera - no computer work (no sharpening, levels, contrast) - nothing, just printed "as is". I never saw a print this size as sharp and contrasty from a 35mm wet print. For annother scenery, this technology may have caused a too contrasty result.
Jens Bladt Arkitekt MAA http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt -----Oprindelig meddelelse----- Fra: Christian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sendt: 23. august 2005 22:50 Til: [email protected] Emne: Re: "Stunning" at 24x36 inches? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 4:23 PM Subject: RE: "Stunning" at 24x36 inches? > Wether prints will be stunning or not, dos not really have anything to > with > format or sensor type (film or digital). > As always, when we are talking about photography - the w h o l e process > matters: > The optics, focusing, sensor, sensor setting (contrast and sharpness), > file-type, raw conversion, choice of film, exposure, all the printing > parameters, after market processing in the computer etc. etc. If all the > choices made are the right ones - for the single image - stunning results > can be reached. One wrong choice can ruin the final result - or make the > image average or mediocre. So, to me it seems this discussion is pretty > useless, You forgot a decent picture (composition, subject, etc) to begin with. A crappy ultra-high resolution image with bleeding edge sharpness is still a crappy image. Christian
