[Leica] 12X enlargements etc. 12X enlargements etc. 12X enlargements etc.

[Mitch Alland <malland@mac.com>]

Mike:

Mike Johnston >>>>My opinion is that, using the same film,
>with both cameras on a tripod,
>and both negatives enlarged with careful technique to more-or-less
>16x20, that most people would pick the medium-format print as being of
>"higher optical quality" or "higher print quality" however they
>may choose to define it.

Would you also say that, generally, if you're aiming for 12x18 inch prints and want good print quality, you should be using medium format rather than 35mm?

I am not so sure. I've been making work prints at 8x12 and final prints at 12x18 (using a Fuji Pictrography printer). If I look at the prints side by side, the 8x12s do have "higher print quality" as you state, but that is looking at them from the same distance, which one tends to do when comparing the large and small prints side by side. Even if one holds the smaller print closer to the eye and the larger print farther away, one's judgment is affected by the initial side-by-side view that one had when one first picked up the prints, so the judgment may be suspect. But what if one sees only one print, mounted on the wall? One would come closer to view the smaller print, and stand farther away viewing the larger print, and perhaps would not feel that the 12x18 print lacked anything in terms of "print quality"; indeed one might feel more "impact" from the larger print.

Now, many people will say that some prints look better smaller while others look better larger. That may be true, but how can one charterize precisely the type of print that looks better smaller and the type that looks better larger -- and is there likely to be consenses on these specific characteristics? Moreover, I suppose that these characteristics would differ depending whether were talking about photographs that are: (1) fine grain b&w, (2) coarse grain b&w, or (3) color.

- -Mitch