It is 5x7 that has that high fun coefficient for me...right now, anyway. Big enough for contacts, small enough to to use without much effort. Easy to travel with. Got a bad knee right now that makes carrying the 8x10 a no-go right now.
It is 5x7 that has that high fun coefficient for me...right now, anyway. Big enough for contacts, small enough to to use without much effort. Easy to travel with. Got a bad knee right now that makes carrying the 8x10 a no-go right now.
"Landscapes exist in the material world yet soar in the realms of the spirit..." Tsung Ping, 5th Century China
Once again, I find your comment to be a little gem that I copy and put in my Notes files so I can reference later.
However, could you explain why there is less of a difference with color:
"Moving up to 5x7 or 8x10 in B&W does make a difference over 4x5 when optically enlarge printed. Color less so."?
Thanks!
Sent from my SM-G981V using Tapatalk
Color less so? Not in my opinion! I guess that is if you're dealing with a stock photo selection atop a light box a few decades back deciding which to print in a magazine, possibly reduced smaller than even a 4x5 original. It wouldn't have made any difference. But it can make a significant difference on larger scale, PROVIDED all the relevant logistical issues have been ironed out first, technique-wise. As a darkroom color printmaker, I could go into all kinds of technical reasons pro or con. But 8x10 color film is getting quite expensive.
Bookmarks