What you see, depends on what you look for. Now, I don't want anyone here who makes prints for a living to take offense at the following, but here goes: The prints most folks look at are 4x6 machine prints with off colors, so-so exposure done on high contrast paper that blows out the highlights and blocks up the shadows. A rather modest digital darkroom can produce an 8x10 that looks far better. Is it as good as a custom wet chemistry print? No, but you may not see the difference at any sort of normal viewing distance. I don't look at prints with a loupe. I check a print from about 8" away. If I can't see it at that distance, no one will see it on a wall. On the wall I see the difference between a good lens and a mediocre one, and slow film from fast film. I mean, do people do this with paintings, unless they're examining brush techniques? I am most interested in things I can see when I look at a picture like a picture, and not a test specimen. If threads give you a tingle, then great; I wouldn't have the quality of a picture hang by one.
--- Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The thing that twigged me that something wasn't quite right was > the groom's tuxedo -- it was deep and rich, but with reasonable shadow > detail...and an absolute lack of threads. Once you start looking for > it, it becomes fairly obvious. > > But like I said, depending on what you do and what you like in a print, > it doesn't necessarily matter. Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards� http://movies.yahoo.com/ - 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 .
