Subject: Re: Just printed the test pictures from the *ist D...
>> John, I beg to differ. I'll put a 10X8 inkjet from my camera up against a >> 4X5 shot of yours any time you like. Printed out on inkjet at 300 dpi. >> Let me have your address and it's in the post. >> >> 6MP DSLRs are photographically exhilarating. >> >Oh no. I've compared numerous prints made from 4x5 scans with some very >fine digital prints from some of the world's best pros.There is no >comaparison. It's quite obvious that even the best digitals can't equal >the resolution of a properly scanned 4x5 negative. How could one even >think otherwise? Sorry if I didn't make it clear originally. I'm talking about a pic from a 6 MP DSLR printed onto inkjet, and a pic from a 4X5 camera, scanned, also printed onto inkjet (preferably from the same printer). This may seem a moot point, but if all one ever does is print inkjet, why use a 4X5 if there is no discernable increase in quality? Surely the limiting factor is the inkjet printer? Conversely, if wet printing up to decent exhibition sizes, why bother with printing inkjet from 6MP DSLR to same size? If inkjet printing from 4X5 scanned up to very large sizes (anything above 16X12 for instance) then of course, the 4X5 is going to win - it has to. The 6MP runs out of picture! HTH ======================== I generally agree with what your saying. Yes there would be little point in using 4X5 or larger film if you only want to make 8X10 inkjet prints TODAY. But what if the printers improve ( I think they will especially the B&W performance) and what if you get some really nice shots that you want to go larger with for whatever reason? By having shot them on a higher quality format, you have more options in the future. How could one ever know with absolute certainty that that an 8X10 inkjet is the most you will EVER need of a given shot? JCO
