Rayt
Nonplayer Character
Long ago when I had access to a darkroom, printing large 6x6 Tri-X negs was a joy. The difference compared to 135 format was obvious even when I printed small like 8"x8" - the tonality, the milky whites, the glow. Now when I scan my negs from the 'Blad on the LS9000ED I get 200Mb files and when I output them on my R2400 inkjet the computer just discards the extra data and I get a print looking not much better than a 50Mb scan from a 135 scan. Unless I am shooting for billboards or crop excessively then why go through the trouble of shooting medium format if my output is going to be digital?
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
I feel pretty much the same Ray, as I only print upto A4 size, the inkjets from 35mm, will do for 'run of the mill' stuff. For anything 'special' - b+w, I've vowed to bring the Durst enlarger back out of retirement, try as I may, I've never equalled the results I got in the 'old days'! - though I used to kid myself that I did, when I first got scanners and printers! 
Cheers, Dave
Cheers, Dave
mfogiel
Veteran
I disagree, that can only happen if you print small. When I want a top quality print from the R2400 I print at 360 DPI, and if you print at 11x14, the quality is good but the grain is normally well visible, if you can actually compress a 6x6 neg somewhat, a 14x14 print form the Blad will come out almost grainless and with a better tonality - I think you can even see a difference on screen.
I will attach a couple of shots for a comparison, trying to favour the 35mm - the first is from a Tri-X negative shot with the Makro Planar 100/2 - one of the sharpest lenses I have ever seen
The second is shot on HP5+ with a Hassy and the long end of the 140/280 Variogon, probably the least sharp lens you can put on this camera
I think that even on screen you can see much finer detail and evidently smaller grain.
I will attach a couple of shots for a comparison, trying to favour the 35mm - the first is from a Tri-X negative shot with the Makro Planar 100/2 - one of the sharpest lenses I have ever seen
The second is shot on HP5+ with a Hassy and the long end of the 140/280 Variogon, probably the least sharp lens you can put on this camera
I think that even on screen you can see much finer detail and evidently smaller grain.
Last edited:
sojournerphoto
Veteran
I routinely print at 600dpi input for canon and hp printers. The HP will take a 1200dpi file if I've enough data, and experience using 1Ds3 files suggests that (whatever the guru's say!) more than 300dpi of data is worthwhile
Mike
Mike