>From a thread on the newsgroups, here's great comarison with respect to detail.
Collin (don't flame me too badly) Brendemuehl *************************************************************************** >From Vito: Charles Pezeshki wrote: > Formats are complementary-- Absolutely! Using one format to do jobs better attuned to another is like chiseling with a screwdriver - you'll get results but not the ones you want. > I shoot color, and as such, the question I ALWAYS ask before burning another > Quickload (at $5/pop) is 'would I want this picture blown up on my wall at > 24x32?' If not, I don't shoot it. Second that one too! That's why I pack a roll film holder of color film - for the interesting shots I don't plan to enlarge beyond 8x10. OTOH when a B&W 8x10 farm scene I made won a very minor show, a minicam freak photographed the same scene then challenged me to compare grain. Turned out he was right in that one aspect: the paper's grain limited what either format could do at 8x10. But his foreground was blurry and under greater enlargement the "specks" he'd whined about on my neg became ducks, with detail in their feathers, and a speck on the barn became a readable sign. That made him blow about $5000 on LF gear .... ...
