Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Shire,Stanley" <sshire@c...> wrote:
> Geez! How many of us are printing 44"x33" prints (that is approximately
> = to a 500meg file?)

I'll tell you guys what -- it might not be that practical, but it's still enlightening. I 
shot a personal project, where I shot these teenage kids that hang out at this 
local "artsy coffeehouse"; I shot them on 8x10 BW film, and then scanned those 
on an Agfa T2500. The files were, in short, just massive. Out of control. Huge. 
But given this, there was still this very beautiful quality to the files, since the 
scans came from such giant film.

The whole approach of scanning giant film on a flatbed is so different from 
scanning 120 film on an Imacon. In general, I'm always loyal to the Imacon, due to 
the amazing sharpness and the killer software, but I was surprised and very 
satisfied with these flatbed scans from 8x10. I could have gone wall-size with 
the prints, with gorgeous tonal range and depth.

http://www.marktucker.com/bongo/

Just the portraits were shot with the 8x10. The kids did their own mat and gave 
it back to me.

But the point is: I'm jonesing for another 8x10. I know it's because that now I own 
a 9600, and there's a part of me that is dying to see a 44" wide print that's still 
3-D razor sharp. If you've never shot big format, it's certainly an education; I 
can't imagine how anybody would be disappointed (unless you're a sports 
photographer...)

MT, http://www.marktucker.com