On the wall of my office I have a print hanging of an image I took at Lake Mungo some years ago. The same image is thumbnail #14 (counting from top left) at http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=238096
I had an interneg made of the original 35mm trannie, and then had the interneg printed at 48'x36', then mounted and framed. It still looks stunning. The original trannie was taken using my old Pentax z-1, with a sigma 24mm AF lens stopped all the way down, a cable release and a Manfrotto 055 tripod and 141 head. The exposure details escape me, but it was a long (one minute or so) exposure as it was just before dawn. Sure MF provides undoubtedly better detail and quality in each neg or pos. However, humble old 35mm gear can still churn out some stunners when we put our minds too it. Making the interneg was definitely the secret of getting a print as big as I did that still has such good detail and relatively unnoticeable grain. (The interneg was shot on a 67 by the way.) Shaun Canning PhD Student Archaeology Department La Trobe University, Bundoora, Australia, 3086. e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 0414-967 644 -----Original Message----- From: J. C. O'Connell [mailto:hifisapi@;gate.net] Sent: Thursday, 31 October 2002 03:45 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) I disagree, I can see a difference between 35mm and medium format even in a print as small as 8X10. As for 11X14, I'm not sure if 4X5 negs would look better than medium format, but 35mm 11X14s are pushing the limits of 35mm for sure. JCO > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:Pentxuser@;aol.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 11:43 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Re[2]: Brad's Pentax Gripe Gets Nasty ;-) > > > Brad I competely disagree. 35mm is not dying and yes it can compete. It > depends on what you are shooting and how large you are going to > blow it up. > Many shots are taken with 35mm equipment that could not be taken > with larger > format equipment. Many people like larger format because they are > impressed > with the larger negative. Fair enough. But if you never enlarge > beyond 11X14, > me thinks it's a little bit of overkill. > > Vic > > > In a message dated 10/30/02 11:17:29 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << No doubt. 35mm cannot compete, and it's dying anyhow. > > > > Ever since I moved up format from 35mm to 67 - many of the concerns > > > and worries about what Pentax and the others were doing/planning in > > > the 35mm world ceased to concern me. > > > > > > I just got back proofs from a wedding I shot over the weekend - 8 > > > rolls of 120 and 2 rolls of 35mm. The 35mm was shot on the MZ-S with > > > the FA*85/1.4 and FA35/2 - both good lenses. While it looks very > > > nice, the 67 stuff is noticeably better even in 4X5 proofs. And when > > > they are blown up to 8X10 or larger - well... >> >
