--- Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Matt, > > While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film, I > would submit that > it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF. > I personally don't > think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14 - > even there the > difference is obvious. > > > Bruce ____________________________ I agree. But by "looks that good" you must mean poorly shot, poorly composed, poorly developed negatives/prints. Any wedding photographer/portraitist, whether they shoot 35mm (and most (or their assistants) still do for their candids) or medium format for their formals, use print film. A lot of 35mm prints end up as 16 x 20 wall prints of Brides and/or executives or Business owners. With a Portra-etc., the slight fuzziness therein is not only acceptable, but expected and not even noticeable at 12 to 15 feet.
Much of the present discussion regarding grain of sharpness does not factor in the astonishing leaps in grain control made by print film manufacturers. While the terminology being used in this dicussion may have fit the print films of say, 1995, today's ISO 800 print film easily rivals 1998s ISO 100 in grain and sharpness. You can easily take a properly exposed, properly focused Portra 800 print up to 11 x 14 and hardly notice. OK, maybe you and me might notice, but the average viewer? No way. *Here's the caveat: 11 x 14 and 16 x 20 prints have a proper (never agreed upon) viweing distance. When viewed from say 10 feet, a properly exposed, properly focused 16 x 20 print made with ISO 800 film cannot be said to be "grainy" and most times, "unsharp". **You already know that judging an 11 x 14 print at only arm's length or with a loupe does not represent any degree of fairness in the judging as to sharpness, composition or exposure. Remember, "grain" is the best friend an ugly Bride or heavily wrinkled executive has. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! ===== Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
