there are at least two ways to do a landscape, lifelike/realistic and impressionistic. While you may be able to achieve some beautiful grain and soft effects with 35mm landscapes, it is not going even come close to LF if you are going for the lifelike/realistic approach in a large print. Too many artifacts.... JCO
-----Original Message----- From: Rob Studdert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 7:36 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Film vs Digita, was: lRe: Pentax is Dying? On 27 Jul 2004 at 17:28, William Robb wrote: > Not bizarre at all. In the context of what the conversation has > become, enlargement potential is pretty important. The classic > landscape photograph shows no grain detail as fine as the eye can see, > and ample depth of field. While one could take the same care with a > 110 camera, it would be pointless. > The enlargability isn't there. > Nor is it there for 35mm. > Nor any of the common digital formats. > Medium format film is starting to get there in terms of resolution > and lack of grain, provided one is willing to compromise somewhat on > enlargability, but has trouble with ample depth of field. > > It is difficult to respect a format that doesn't do the job one wants > to do. I don't find this bizarre in the least. So you are alluding to the fact that the only way to present a landscape is large and grain free? I've personally seen some great landscape images printed quite large that were made using 35mm camera and IR film so as to enhance granularity. I've also seen them printed as mini-prints to great effect. There is more than one way to skin a cat. I'm surprised that you have such a narrow view of the subject Bill. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
