> Many critical photogs don't think that 35mm is suitable period > for over 11x14. I tend to agree.
In general, I agree too, but I do print 13x19 B&Ws somewhat frequently from my 35mm negatives with really no difficulty...but I shoot with Leica and Contax (Zeiss) when I shoot 35mm, and those are only from very good films (not Neopan 1600 or Tri-X, but Delta 100 and Plus-X, both developed D-76 1:1). A very decent scanner helps too, as I scan 35mm at 5080. I really only use 35mm for "happy snaps" and convenience, and very low light discrete work, therefore the images tend to be printed typically from 4x6 (color only) to 8.5 x 11. Most any serious work I do with MF. > Again, I feel that 12-16M "good" pixels is realistic equiv to > 35mm film. So you can use files of this > size to pretty closely equal anything that you can with 35mm... Yes, 16M REAL pixels would be real good, no doubt. For a 13 x 19 that would be something like 263 pixels per inch to the printer (assuming ~3.3k x ~5k), and would be quite good, and I would in fact be happy with that for COLOR, but not for B&W, unless the sensor was monochrome. Unfortunately, I fear that digital will ignore B&W, as it is mostly an artsy endeavor, and unfortunately, most people are content with converting color to monochrome. Sigh. Regards, Austin ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
