Message-Id: <199706061445.HAA220882@dns.ccit.arizona.edu> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 1997 10:46:39 -0500 From: George Holmes <mailto:george.holmes@MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU> Subject: Re: 4x6? 5x7? 8x10? To: mailto:IMAGELIB@LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
My didn't someone reveal his age! Yes an 8 x 10 inch contact print has more info in it than one could imagine coming from an 8 x 10 inch negative, but, think of what you'd have with an 11 x 14 inch negative. It'll be a very long time before a digital image will contain as much information as even a 35 mm negative. Just try projecting equal sizes and see who wins. I like to give my favorite reference when someone wants to know if a 35 mm slide is good enough for a publication: do you realize that almost all the images in the National Geographic are from 35 mm slides. If one is going to do serious research on a work of art -that is one thing- but if you are going to run a 2 column color plate and/or a web sizeof say 4 x 6 inch-that is another.But those 8 x 10 inch contacts were beautiful weren't they. When I retire I want to own an 8 x 10 inch camera even if i never use it! George
>At 08:39 AM 6/6/97 +1000, J Brasher wrote:
>>Better to scan from the negative - better still to scan from 4x5" negs, but
>>35m still quite good. Jennifer
>
>Curious how things change. In my student days, 35mm negs were considered
>unpublishable, 4x5 were okay for publications and 8x10 (and larger: 16x20s)
>were considered reference prints. When you bought an 8x10 print from a
>museum, more likely than not, it was a contact print.
>
>R.Baron
mailto:>rabaron@pipeline.com
George Holmes, MSGT/USAF-Ret Archer M Huntington Art Gallery The University of Texas 23rd and San Jacinto St Austin, Tx 78712-1205 Photographer-Site Designer Ph# 512.471.9194 Fax# 512.471.7023 http://www.utexas.edu/cofa/hag ***********************I will not tolerate intolerance********************