Interesting, Bill. A 4x5 is about as much bigger than an 6x7 as a 6x7 is bigger than 35mm, yet you say you can tell the difference between a 35 and a 6x7 but not between a 6x7 and a 4x5. Personally I find that there is not much difference between a compedent 6x7 and a mediocre 4x5, the the fact you can go slap happy with a 4x5 negative and still get a satisfactory result, to me, points up the difference.
Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 7:36 PM Subject: Re: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "J. C. O'Connell" > Subject: RE: 35mm SUCKS! Try 4X5 > > > > I can see a difference in my 8.5X11"s between > > 35mm, 67 & 4X5. The main differences are in > > sharpness, microcontrast, and grain. > > You dont need to go to huge prints to see the differences > > although it does make the differences more apparent > > when you go 11X14, 13 X19, or larger. > > You may want to have a read of what Mr. Johnson has to say on the subject. > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/LF-Con.htm > I suspect that what you are seeing has more to do with scanning rather than > anything inherent in the format sizes. > I have 11x14 prints from both 6x7 and 4x5 on my walls. Both show similar > granularity (none) and tonality. > I make first generation real photographs though, on real photographic paper. > This is not the same thing as producing a second generation electronic > facsimile of a negative, and then making a third generation print from it. > > William Robb > >
