You have to mean 2000 dpi. 200 dpi only gives you 450 x 550 on a 2-1/4 x 2-3/4 negative.
I think people forget the original “purpose” or reason for larger format (film) a) it requires less enlargement for the same sized print (magnifying fewer of the physical film limitations, like grain) - so is better suited for prints that are going to be wall-sized enlargements. This is not going to be well seen (appreciated) if the display is on your monitor or typical web page display. b) people either forget or don’t know about how DOF is thinner, at equivalent apertures, all other things being equal. This made medium format especially great for portraits & weddings (closer focus photography vs infinity photography). This page well explains this and shows it in the SLOW sign photo, down the page: https://web.archive.org/web/20160819084802/http://silverbased.org/dof-vs-format/ So for example if you think the razor thin DOF of a 50mm f1.2 is great for a shot you can achieve the same look with the 6x7 105mm f2.4 (both wide open, obviously). Frankly, Larry, your choice of subject, focal distance, AND display would not show any of these advantages, even with the lens I mentioned. -- “The Earth is Art, The Photographer is only a Witness ” ― Yann Arthus-Bertrand, Earth from Above -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
