ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: what defines this quality?



> > Bottom line is, there's only so far you can go (in terms
> > of enlargement) with 35 mm film.  Sure, you can blow it
> > up to almost any size you want, but the same image on
> > a larger slide/negative will always yield a better print.
> >
> > Which is why I'm now screwing around with 645 cameras,
> > and the associated bulk and $$$ involved in all that.
>
> warning: this is a long and slippery slope!
>
> I am now on a 4x5 and starting to think, hm, 8x10 would be nice.
> --

I concur!  It IS a slippery slope.  That is why I am now BACK to 35mm with
Leica and Contax, and getting more particular with my film and
development...




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.