[rollei_list] Re: OT / prove it !
- From: Slobodan Dimitrov <s.dimitrov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:43:37 -0800
Maybe you should of said seeing clearly 8-)
I wouldn't discount Eric's experience gained from looking at prints,
never mind his own shooting experience.
A 5x7 can give a fairly accurate sense of what's going. But it's rarely
just one thing that gives that impression .
My own experience is that at about 6x8 the print start falling apart. I
rarely go beyond that size with my personal 35mm work. In 120 I rarely
going beyond 9x9 which is where the print starts showing granularity, a
shift in contrast, weakness in the specular highlights, and the usual
assortment of darkroom zoo animals. Being a lazy printer, I don't feel
the need to sweat a print out of a difficult negative.
The formulations for 120 and 35mm optics are geared for different
needs, whether it's production limitations imposed by the bean
counters, or a company's historic product signature. Those differences
are evident at any level of enlargement, and yes, even contact
printing.
S. Dimitrov
On Mar 31, 2005, at 8:00 PM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Hi Slobodon,
>
>> I would have to agree with Eric on this one.
>
> Then you're not thinking clearly ;-)
>
>> The sheer volume of negative with 120 gives a much deeper density to
>> the final print.
>
> Agreed, for larger prints. A 24 x 24 with a MF negative is far and
> above
> what even under the most favorable conditions a 35mm could provide.
> I'd
> even say 12 x 12 as well...but Eric is claiming he can see this in a
> 5x7. A
> human just can't SEE that on a 5x7 with the unaided eye under any
> normal
> viewing circumstances. For 5x7, it's probably impossible as well even
> grain
> sniffing. The print just can't hold that much detail, and your naked
> eye
> just couldn't see it.
>
> Regards,
>
> Austin
>
>
>
>
Slobodan Dimitrov
http://sdimitrovphoto.com
Other related posts:
