Chucking it and going to DSLR?

[Ben Syverson]

You honestly think that you could not tell the difference between a 16x20 from a cell phone and a 4x5 enlargement? If you really believe that then your ability to judge print quality is seriously in question.

When did I say that? I never said I couldn't tell the difference, just that a cell phone can make a perfectly good 16x20.

I just got three 16x20 digital C prints made. Like all C prints, they don't resolve needle-thin detail like inkjet prints do. Looking at the file and the prints side-by-side, I figure I'm getting about 150 DPI from the prints. 16x20" at 150 DPI is 2400x3000, or 7.2 Megapixels.

There are plenty of 8 MP cell phones out there, and some even higher.

Could I tell the difference between the 16x20 from the cell phone vs 4x5? Obviously, but sharpness-wise, they'll be comparable.

I'm just saying, any entry-level DSLR will give you a nice looking 16x20 C-print. If that's the largest you need to go, you don't need to be using LF for its resolution.

[dh003i]

You honestly think that you could not tell the difference between a 16x20 from a cell phone and a 4x5 enlargement? If you really believe that then your ability to judge print quality is seriously in question.

Maybe he's looking at the prints from 100 feet away? ;-)

[Ben Syverson]

See above.

[pablo batt]

is that a real photograph??

no its a inkjet

lol

[Juergen Sattler]

If I didn't know that this was the LF forum, I'd think I accidentally clicked on the APUG site:-)

[Robert Hughes]

Maybe he's looking at the prints from 100 feet away? ;-)

Nah, they both look the same on a flash drive

[pablo batt]

whats a flash drive?

if it involves a flash gun and a car , im really not interested

crazy kids

[PViapiano]

I haven't read this whole thread yet, and not sure I want to, but...no cell phone lens can match a camera lens, so sure, you can make 16x20s with them, but the optics aren't there, regardless of the pixel count.

[paulr]

When did I say that? I never said I couldn't tell the difference, just that a cell phone can make a perfectly good 16x20.

As is always the case, "perfectly good" is a subjective judgement. It depends on who's looking. And more importantly, on what the work in question requires from the print.

I've seen plenty of "perfectly good" 16 x 20 prints made from 35mm. They were grainy and fairly soft, and when you got close you'd see more image structure, not more detail. This is perfectly good for the gritty, Magnum street journalism esthetic where you often see it. It's not perfectly good or even half good for some other kinds of work.

For some of my work older work, I liked the way the prints looked up to about 3X enlargement (just under 12 x 9 inches). When I tried 4X enlargements (16x20 ish) I wasn't as happy. My current color work looks ok to me at about 5X. It's not that the negatives are better (they're worse, actually) but the work just doesn't require that pristine contact print look in order to succeed.

Camera phones at 16x20? It'll work fine for some things, but it will look like a huge enlargement. Comparing to 4x5 is apples and oranges.

[Ben Syverson]

Comparing to 4x5 is apples and oranges.

Maybe, but it's not apples and automobiles.

My main point remains: you can make great 16x20s from digital cameras -- especially a DSLR. No one "needs" to shoot 4x5 in order to make 16x20 C-prints. So if you'll never print larger than that, and you don't need extensive movements, I think you should take a good hard look at DSLRs. Don't take my word for it -- get 16x20 digital C prints from a DSLR and a 4x5 and compare. In terms of sharpness and tonality, there's zero difference.

Personally, 16x20 is the absolute smallest I'll print. I shoot 8x10 because I want to go big.