Doug, Yeah, I was trying to figure out exactly what he was saying. Seems like a piece of crap shot (out of focus, badly exposed) on medium or large format wouldn't be compared to anything.
I was commenting based on actual experience of taking high quality 35mm shots with good films and good lenses and good technique compared to the same thing done with medium format. Before I shot medium format I was always trying to justify to myself that 35mm was good enough for enlargements (beyond 8X10), but finally having made the move, I can say for myself that MF is significantly better looking in the larger prints. That doesn't mean there isn't a time and place where 35mm is the best choice, just that a bigger negative makes for a better bigger picture. Bruce Monday, February 10, 2003, 9:26:50 PM, you wrote: DB> Welcome back, Mafud. DB> At 9:14 PM -08002/10/03, Matt Greene wrote, or at least typed: >>> >>While it may be obvious that one 35mm print or another >>may be discernable from Medium Format, a properly >>exposed, properly focused 35mm negative, say Portra >>160, when properly printed, can easily rival a poorly >>exposed, poorly focused medium format negative. >>As you noted, the enlarger easel and enlarger head >>must be properly aligned to get the maximaboutom >>either. >> >>The talk aobut "grain" always bothers me. "Grain" is >>purely subjective. Some prints are absolutely horrid >>(most B&W images) without "grain". Then again, >>printing on textured paper defeats "grain" argument >>every time. >>"Grain", like "saturated colors" is, for all intents >>and purposes, an affectation of purists and slide film >>shooters. Print film users tend not to make such a >>fuss about "grain". >> >>Besides, a little "grain" never hurt an ugly Bride. >> >> >>===== >> >>Matt Greene >> >>I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
