The (in)significance of resolution

Started Apr 15, 2013 | Discussions thread
DaSigmaGuy
Forum ProPosts: 12,275Gear list
Like?
Re: The (in)significance of resolution
In reply to victorgv, Apr 17, 2013

victorgv wrote:

rattymouse wrote:

I remember the first time i saw a medium format film negative printed.  Both a 6 x 9 negative as well as a 6 x 4.5 negative printed to only 5 x 7 absolutely CRUSHED a 35mn negative printed the same size.  It was so different, you could pick out the medium format print 100% of the time.

Clearly resolution mattered then.  Why would it not matter now??

-- hide signature --

9 years of Fujifilm camera usage, ended by rampant fanboyism.

1. In general photo paper will have much much better resolution than printer.

2. Lenses on medium format probably better .

3. Effect from grain would be much less on print from medium format.

In digital world it does not matter after certain point how good your camera is from point of view of dpi on paper.

1) Yes.

2) No.  Generally speaking, most MF lenses are not as sharp as FF lenses, although there are a few exceptions.

3) Basically, Daves problem is all down to the print resolution of his printer.  If that isn't high enough, a print from a lower res camera will look exactly the same as one from a higher res camera, when printed at the same size.

 DaSigmaGuy's gear list:DaSigmaGuy's gear list
Fujifilm FinePix F660EXR Sigma SD10 Sigma SD14 +25 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow