Brian Campbell wrote: > Biggest I've printed from 67 negs are 16 x 20 - and they're razor > sharp. I think even up to 24 x 30 would be good if from the right > film / exposure combination...
I have a framed 40x30" on the wall behind me, shot on 6x7 Reala using non- Pentax gear. The film grain is barely visible with your nose just about on the glass. Sharpness isn't too bad but where any degradation came from is anyone's guess. Your idea of "razor sharp" might differ from mine ;) The picture is of a replica of the Endeavour sailing out of Lyttelton Harbour, taken from another boat. People's faces are about 2.5 to 3mm in size on the print (they're standing near the middle of the boat). You can see facial features (nose, ear, eye, beard etc) but thats about it. You can't count the strands of hair on their heads :) http://www.digistar.com/~dmann/photography/gallery/endeavour.html (please overlook the fact that I oversharpened the digital image, and the colours aren't quite right... I can't get into the account to change anything at the moment) I find that you're just as dependent on the enlarger as much as the gear you shot with, and with a print that size the magnification factor is high enough that you might be better off with a good scan and digital print. I remember we had to do a bit of retouching on my print due to dust on the neg, which is something else I'd rather do digitally! Cheers, - Dave David A. Mann, B.E. (Elec) "Why is it that if an adult behaves like a child they lock him up, while children are allowed to run free on the streets?" -- Garfield - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
