Basically what your saying is if you don't look close you cant Tell the difference. Well there is a difference IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK. Its not something that's never seen either IMHO. JCO
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 10:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Pentax medium formats ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" Subject: RE: Pentax medium formats > No, you can make a print roughly 55% larger in area with > The P67 while maintaining same dpi/resolution in the print. P67 > Is bigger, is better, in that regard. With dinky prints maybe > No visible difference, but then might as well shoot 35mm/DSLR. Reasonable print size would be 11x14. By 16x20, or if a substantial crop is needed, then yes, 6x7 may give a technically better photograph, providing other considerations, such as depth of field and carryability are also met. I suspect if you stick your nose to the print for viewing, a difference might be visible, from a more normal viewing distance, I wouldn't expect to see much if any advantage with 6x7. They are both more than up to the task of making an 11x14. DSLRs give a remarkably good looking print, since the digital capture and processing doesn't show grain, but fine detail isn't there. 35mm shows grain at any print size bigger than 5x7. Disagree if you like, but I did custom printing of negatives from 35mm to 4x5 for a very long time for gallery displays. I am pretty familiar with the what can be expected from various formats when the prints are on the wall. Esoteric percentages are all very well and good, but they don't really tell much in the real world of display photographs. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
