mike@asgb.UUCP (Mike Rosenlof) (06/18/85)
> > In principle, the 6x6 should offer more resolution than 35mm, but at least for > color work, the sharpest films available are only made in 35mm (read > Kodachrome 25). This probably has at least twice the resolution of > Ektachrome 100. > I don't really know about the resolution differences between films, but as an avid medium format user, just one look at 8x10 enlargements from 120 Ektachrome and some of my older 35mm Kodachrome 64 (yeah I know, the grainy, low resolution stuff :-) ) settles the question of overall quality pretty quickly. ( Let's just talk about technical quality here in a very static environment. I guess this is speaking from the fine arts school, not the photojournalism or action photography school ) Now I'd like to open up a discussion. It's pretty widely agreed that quality is inversely related to degree of enlargement - bigger enlargement, lower quality. But there are many factors just some of them are film grain, film resolution, lens (taking or enlarging) resolution, lens contrast, camera vibration, focussing errors, lens cleanliness, I'm sure there are others. Defects in any of these are amplified by enlargement. Any opinions out there about what are the limiting factors? Or, which of these factors (or other factors) detract from the picture first? I'm a grain freak, much of the reason I use medium format, so I would rate that pretty high. I suspect that film resolution is finer than lens resolution, which is easily mucked up by camera shake or focussing errors. So my votes would go to grain, shake, and focus. Mike Rosenlof ihnp4!sabre!\ hplabs!sdcrdcf!-bmcg!asgb!mike { ihnp4, ucbvax, allegra }!sdcsvax!/ Burroughs Advanced Systems Group Boulder, Colorado