Quote:
Originally Posted by Alistair
Here's a non-scientific blog about the large format film vs 61mp digital for large prints...
tl;dr - for a 48" print, they're close. But that's a 61mp camera, which isn't typical today.
https://www.mountainphotography.com/...on-comparison/
And of course, part of producing and buying art is the process/story. I own some art that looks pretty, but I don't know the back-story and don't feel much connection with - it's just aesthetically pleasing. I also own art where I know the artist, know the story behind the art, and feel a connection with the piece. |
I've done a 60" print with a 23mp "full frame" digital image. It was a metal print and it was god-awful insanely expensive. $500+
There is "holds up" when you stick your nose at your eyes minimum focusing distance, and then there is "holds up" at a reasonable viewing distance.
If you're going to stand at the minimum distance your eyes can focus there is nothing like an 8"x10" print from an 8"x10" piece of film. It feels like infinite detail and you can just fall into the image. There is no visible film grain. The only ones of these I've actually seen of course are Ansel Adams' prints of his own work, both back about 20 years ago when there was a traveling exhibit and then about 15 years ago I visited the center in Yosemite.
But from realistic distances it doesn't really matter. And almost no one is actually doing 100% analog 8x10 prints from 8x10 film the way he did it.
This stuff really was something I was very into.. having a family kind of killed it.