Digital BW, The Print

At the end..;
" few photographers have ever done letter-size,
>much less 16X20 contacts :-)"

Well, why is that ?? Get with it :  )

gar



*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 9/27/2008 at 4:48 PM djon43 wrote:

>Edward Weston's prints, seemingly always contacts, were superior in
>every respect to Ansel Adams' enlargements in my experience. And few
>darkroom photographers have made 
>
>In that context, it would be interesting to compare enlargements to
>Tyler's contacts and inkjets: I'm pretty sure the inkjets would 
>out-resolve the enlarged print in every case. My own testing suggests
>prints from MCRX condenser enlarger with superb Rodenstock enlarging
>lens is far inferior to routine scan/inkjet in most respects.
>
>Think whether you'd prefer a mural from an enlarger or from an inkjet
>printer. I've seen a lot of both and do have a preference.
>
>Would reasons for that preference extend to common very small prints,
>such as 11X14? I think it does. 
>
>Comparison of inkjet to contact is interesting and very worthwhile in
>the abstract (thank you Tyler), but it would be more worthwhile to 
>those of us with more visual and less theoretic concerns to compare
>inkjet to enlargement: few photographers have ever done letter-size,
>much less 16X20 contacts :-)
>
>