> I did not say I have not seen stunning 30x40 from film but > few from a 35mm > negative to paper as you lose clarity at abour 20x24 where > you should be > using medium format film to keep it sharp. With a digital > camera and a CCD or CMOS sensor smaller than a 35mm negative > size I can do as well as say > 6x4.5cm film. The huge stunning prints are almost always > scanned using a > drum scanner and then printed digital since you cannot get > the same result directly from film to paper. Having said > that, realize you are then > using digital in the process so your point is invalid. Show > me a beautiful large print and I will guarantee it was drum > scanned from film, making it for all intents and purposes a > digital file.
I have never read anyone make the argument that scanned film = digital. For example, the original question was when will a digital camera be superior to a 35 mm camera. You are now saying that scanning film is the equivalent to a digital camera, therefore you can't make the comparison. However, from what I have read around the Net, it seems that many people believe that the best way to get prints is not from traditional optical enlargement, but from high-quality scanning and high-quality printing (such as the LightJet). But to then state that scanning film is the same as digital is unique. Anyway, to answer the original poster's question, read www.luminous-landscape.com/d60.htm. There is a comparison between D30, D60, 35 mm, 645 and 6x7. * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
