Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2001/01/09
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]That's not quit what the photodo article said. It just said that sharpness did not increase as much as grain decreased going small to big. It does touch on what I was writing about before - which was that the speed boost is paid for in grain (and ultimately, tone). I agree with some others who think that tonality is key in going with big over small. I imagine you could keep blowing up TMX, but it's not always the film for the job. It's nice to have a choice, and that's why when you have the time and the energy, MF is nice. Dante On Tue, 9 Jan 2001, Douglas Cooper wrote: > > > > > For example, Tri-X in 35mm looks like hell at any EI. Not pretty, > > and something you would only use if you needed it. > > > I'd have to take issue with that; but then, I *like* grain. Tri-X remains > one of my favorite films at 35mm. > > Speaking of this medium vs 35mm format discussion, have you read that essay > on photodo in which the author claims that with Tmax there is *no* inherent > advantage to larger formats? I find it hard to believe -- as did the author > -- but he claims tests show that blowing up a a 4x5 shot on Tmax 100 offers > no sharpness benefit over the same size enlargement from 35mm. > > This seems radically counterintuitive to me, but then my large format work > tends towards transparencies (where the advantage is obvious). > > Douglas Cooper > http://www.dysmedia.com >