chipgreenberg
Well-known
This is obviously subjective. I'M happy with 12x18's from Ektar 100 when i have good technique, and good (drum or flex tight ) scans.
David Hughes
David Hughes
HI,
Last night or the night before, I was looking for something and found an old heap of photo mag's from 1976. One of them had an article about the various B&W films then available and in it a pro said FP4 (not FP4+) was best for exhibitions prints up to 36" and microscopic detail...
Just passing it on.
Regards, David
Last night or the night before, I was looking for something and found an old heap of photo mag's from 1976. One of them had an article about the various B&W films then available and in it a pro said FP4 (not FP4+) was best for exhibitions prints up to 36" and microscopic detail...
Just passing it on.
Regards, David
Pioneer
Veteran
David Hughes
David Hughes
Can't agree more, but where would forums be without these hardy annuals? ;-)
Regards, David
Regards, David
pete hogan
Well-known
And where would they be without 35mm Tri-X at which to fire away?
Rikard
Established
And how large can you print a digital file before it becomes painfully obvious that it's not a real print 
Pioneer
Veteran
Depends on whether it is being compared on APUG or on RFF.
Nuff
Newbie
I like grain, big grain, but it has to be nice and it only works for some scenes.
When I want sharp I use MF, there are many MF cameras which can take photos with slow shutter speed. With my hasselblad I can shoot down to 1/60s if I need to. With rolleiflex or pretty much any TLR, you can get down to 1/15th since there's no mirror. I rarely if ever use tripod.
When I want sharp I use MF, there are many MF cameras which can take photos with slow shutter speed. With my hasselblad I can shoot down to 1/60s if I need to. With rolleiflex or pretty much any TLR, you can get down to 1/15th since there's no mirror. I rarely if ever use tripod.