Re: [Leica] Re: Digital storage???

[Thomas Kachadurian <kach@freeway.net>]

At 04:38 PM 11/29/97 -0800, you wrote:

I can agree that for magazine repro, a 6x7 will get you all the quality you
ever need. But you are kidding yourself if you think there isn't a
significant quality improvment when you go to 4x5, in tonality alone.

You can make a good 11x14 from 35mm negs, even a 16x20, but for an image
with great detail, perhaps a landscape with a wide angle lens, you can only
resolve every leaf and branch, every rock, with a 4x5 original.

Tom


>which leads to the conclusion that for printing on a printing press of
>almost any magazine size images, there is absolutely nothing to be
>gained from using anything larger than a Leica.  I find this is true and
>not true.  Why do color separators always want larger images and why do
>they sometimes print better?  Perhaps it is the quality of the lens in
>the scanner??  All I know is that it is very difficult for me to tell
>the difference in print between what I have shot 35 and 67 or 4x5 if the
>scanning house is of quality.  But why should it be more difficult to
>scan 35 than 4x5?  
>
>The most wonderful thing about Evercolor prints is that they are so
>detailed that the difference bwtween a 35 and 4x5 original when printed
>large by the process is very hard to tell apart.  I remember seeing
>Galen Rowell (35 Nikkor) and David Muench (probably 4x5 Schneider)
>Evercolors side by side and just being so happy to find proof that I
>don't need to shoot 4x5.  the real comparison was between the Rowell
>evercolor and the same image by R or C print in the Nikon booth at a
>trade show.  Night and day.  
>
>Thanks for the erudite post.
>
>Donal Philby
>San Diego
>
>
>