Re: Re: [Leica] yesterday's technolgy at retired dentists prices!

[ShadCat11@aol.com]

In a message dated 06/28/2001 2:58:25 PM, you wrote:

<<on 6/28/01 2:05 PM, Jason Hall at JASON@jbhall.freeserve.co.uk wrote:

> I've heard it said that at
> modest enlargements the step up from 6x6 to 4x5 is not really visible
> but your comments below suggest there is a marked difference, I also
> dabble with 6x6 (Mamiya C220) in addition to my Leica's so I'd be
> interested to know how big you print and how much difference there is
> between the 4x5 and the 6x6 pics.  To date I have never made prints
> bigger than 12"x16" although occasionally I'm cropping to 12x16".


well it depends what you're shooting I think

if you are shooting 100 asa then you won't see much difference between a
12x12 print from 120 and a 12x16 from 4x5, thought it WILL be there in the
delicacy of the tonality and the rendering of very fine details.

If you are shooting 400 asa then you will see a BIG difference. And if you
are shooting people on 4x5 I suspect you will be shooting 400 or higher
speeds. I certainly do.

on 4x5 you can shoot film at 800 or 1600 and still have effectively
grain-free enlargements at all sensible sizes. You *cannot* do that on 120.

I think there are subtler differences as well. They are certainly different
beasts. Shooting 4x5 tends to enforce totally different work habits that
produce different results. Slobodan called it 'monumental' and there's truth
in that.
- -- 
John Brownlow
>>

Several years ago there was an exhibition of Brian Lanker's "I Dream a 
World," b&w portraits of African American women of accomplishment.  There 
were @ 40 prints of large size, 30X40 and up.  About half were taken with an 
8X10, the rest with Hasselblad.  While there were differences, the large 
format results did not blow away Hassy stuff, which unquestionably held its 
own.  It was a revelation what modern films and optics can do to close the 
quality gap between MF and LF.  In that regard, there has been progress.

Allen Zak