I agree that normal viewing distance is a factor for fine detail when enlarging images. But going back to Jonathans initial post there is a tendancy for viewers of highly detailed images to be drawn in to it to really look at the fine detail. I have just commented on two images from SeanKP in the gallery that would fall into that catagory.
Other images I have seen that follow that are, early ship pictures taken on massive glass plate negatives. Probably commissioned by the new owners. Also traction, and railway engines from 10 x 8 plates by the manufacturers of these. Incredibly smooth tone, not even a hint of grain, and the recorded detail is just incredible. In more recent times I have seen images taken on a 24inch polariod presented as contact prints .................... amazing.
Going back to Leif's post, that is digitals greatest asset. Without grain masking detail, the detail that is captured by digital seems cleaner/clearer. I have only printed directly from slide on Cibachrome. I have never tried scanning. D100 prints from a six ink printer appeared to be more detailed in 10 x 8 prints compared to those from 35mm slides. 6 x 4.5 and the decision is less easy.
6x6 using Technical Pan is about where I am with the D2X, given that my comparison 6x6 images have been cropped to achieve similar aspect ratio. I would have to recreate my darkroom to positivly prove either way. Technical pan is an extremely fine grained film, so grain intrusion on recorded detail is only evident at high magnification. I used Tech Pan at ISO 12 to give some idea. Whether the X could stand up to a similar comparison with Jonathans 6x7 Mamiya is something else, as his origional post suggests.
Don
|