On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:08:51 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > That may be true in theory. I don't find it to be true in > practice. In my experience, an 11 x 17 print from a carefully > processed an interpolated *ist D file looks every bit as good > to the naked eye as a 35mm print. YRMV.
Do you find that to be true even with images with lots of fine detail? I'm thinking landscapes with lots of trees in the medium distance, where you should get lots of details in the branches and leaves and things. TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
