With film, both pixelation and grain can become an issue. Sometimes the mix is not very nice. That's why for extremely large prints, you'd want to go MF if using film. Or, if printing from 35mm film, an optical print would probably be better. Of course with digital, both noise and pixelation can be a problem. But digital shot at minimum ISO and interpolated up with quality software seems to yield nice reults. But, as I said, I don't have personal experience with 20 x 30 plus prints from 6 MP digital. See Christian's reply to your message. Paul
> Thanks Paul. Most of these prints would be designed for viewing at a > distance of 8 feet or more, and I wouldn't necessarially mind that they > 'degrade' visually up close (most everything does). > > I'll ask you an ignorant question. With film, grain would typically become > an issue at some point of enlargement, while with digital it would be > pixellation. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. It seems to me, though, that > if a digital scan is done of the film, then again pixellation would be the > issue, and not grain. Is that correct? > > Tom C. > > > > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Reply-To: [email protected] > >To: [email protected] > >Subject: Re: Film is dead... > >Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 18:18:04 +0000 > > > >Medium format or large format film would be a better choice than 6 MP > >digital. 35mm won't buy you much. Perhaps a little if you shoot Velvia or > >another fine grain film that resolves well. I haven't printed larger than > >13 x19 from 6 MP digital (which is quite excellent), but Tan and some > >others report good results at 20 x 30. Interpolation method would probably > >be important. And viewing distance enters into it. From six feet away, a > >20x30 from digital probably looks fine. From a foot away, I'm sure it's > >quite loose. > > > > > > > I haven't considered this in a while, but I'm looking at doing some very > > > large work (to me)... at least 30" - 40" in the largest dimension. I > > > suspect film will be a better choice for capture medium than a 6 MP > >camera. > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > > >From: Bruce Dayton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >Reply-To: [email protected] > > > >To: Tom C <[email protected]> > > > >Subject: Re: Film is dead... > > > >Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 10:45:04 -0700 > > > > > > > >That would just make film very sluggish, rather than dead <grin>. > > > > > > > >-- > > > >Best regards, > > > >Bruce > > > > > > > > > > > >Monday, April 25, 2005, 10:37:14 AM, you wrote: > > > > > > > >TC> It's not dead. I just bought 32 rolls of 220 and they're alive in > >my > > > >TC> refrigerator. :) > > > > > > > >TC> Tom C. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>From: "Jens Bladt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > >>Reply-To: [email protected] > > > > >>To: <[email protected]> > > > > >>Subject: RE: Film is dead... > > > > >>Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 19:27:08 +0200 > > > > >> > > > > >>I don't hope film is dead or dying. > > > > >>I just bought (Joe Wilensky's) MZ-S - I want to shoot slides again! > >:-) > > > > >> > > > > >>Jens Bladt > > > > >>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>http://hjem.get2net.dk/bladt > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>-----Oprindelig meddelelse----- > > > > >>Fra: Steve Desjardins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >>Sendt: 25. april 2005 19:12 > > > > >>Til: [email protected] > > > > >>Emne: Re: Film is dead... > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>We teach several courses at my college based on traditional film > > > > >>photography. They are inevitably overfilled with long wait-lists. > >The > > > > >>funny part is that the camera of choice is (still) the K-1000. (I > >have > > > > >>let student borrow lenses and even gave my old Tak 135 2.5 to I > >student > > > > >>I knew.) I think we are seeing digital becoming the main stream > >method > > > > >>of choice and film becoming an artistic alternative. Since many > > > > >>amateurs treat photography as an art from, film should continue to > >do > > > > >>well. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>Steven Desjardins > > > > >>Department of Chemistry > > > > >>Washington and Lee University > > > > >>Lexington, VA 24450 > > > > >>(540) 458-8873 > > > > >>FAX: (540) 458-8878 > > > > >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
